The Herald reports Cunliffe’s earlier denials on Tuesday:
Q: Do you recall ever meeting Liu?
A: I don’t recall ever meeting him, no.
Q: Did you have anything to do with the granting of his permanent residency?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did you advocate on his behalf at all?
A: Nope.
Q:Were you aware of any advice against granting him permanent residency?
A: Not to my recollection.
Archive
Posts Tagged ‘Donghua Liu’
The Donghua Liu Affair: One Year On
15 July 2015
8 comments
.
.
1. The Stage is Set
Just over one year ago, the NZ Herald published a series of stories relating to a then-eleven year old letter written by then-Labour leader, David Cunliffe; alleged “big donations” made to the Labour Party by migrant businssman, Donghua Liu; and other assorted (and somewhat dubious) allegations of “impropriety”.
.
.
.
.
A time-line of events is outlined here: The Donghua Liu Affair: Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
Judging by the activities of the office of the Minister for Immigration; TV3 journalist, Brook Sabin; NZ Herald personnel Shayne Curry, Tim Murphy, Jared Savage, and John Armstrong; blogger Cameron Slater, and assorted right-wingers, it is also evident that there was a high degree of collusion between these parties.
One day before the Herald launched it’s “exclusive” that David Cunliffe had written an eleven year old letter on behalf of Donghua Liu, right-wing blogger “Barnsley Bill” (Russell Beaumont) posted this cryptic comment on blog, ‘The Dim Post‘;
.
.
Hours before Jared Savage’s story (David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid) went live on-line at 2.29PM, Twitter chatter between the Herald’s Editor, Shayne Currie, and sundry right-wing characters were gleefully anticipating the release;
.
.
Some Tweets have been deleted by their authors – but the screenshot above is a permanent record of the conversation. (Acknowledgement to co-writer, ‘Hercules’, for uncovering this part of the story.)
But the ‘clincher’ was this post, on far-right blog, ‘Whaleoil‘, published at 12.57PM – an hour and a half before the Herald published Savage’s story at 2.29PM;
.
.
See full story revealed here: The Donghua Liu Affair: The Players Revealed
Even the Prime Minister could not resist chipping in with his own “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” reference to being privy to more information, as he stated the following morning (19 June) after Savage’s story went live. As Savage reported;
Speaking from the East Lawn at the United Nations this morning, Mr Key said he had heard rumours that Mr Liu had given more that $15,000.
“I’ve heard the rumours and we’ll see what actually comes out but I’d be very, very amazed if the amount is $15,000,” he told New Zealand reporters.
Key’s reference to “$15,000” related to allegations made by the Herald that Liu paid that amount for a book autographed by then-Labour leader, Helen Clark. On 16 June, Savage wrote;
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.
On 22 June, Herald journalist,
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.
The Herald’s sole informant was migrant businessman, Donghua Liu. (More on this point later.)
2. Retractions
But only three days later, as Labour hit back demanding evidence of Liu’s claims and pressure mounted on the Herald to “put up or shut up”, a new, revised, statement appeared;
.
.
Savage wrote;
Liu, to whom Labour gave permanent residency against official advice, says his earlier signed statement on the wine auction was “capable of two meanings” and after repeated inquiries from the Herald he says he wants to clarify what he spent the $100,000 on.
[…]
He said the figure was the total payments to Labour and its politicians which included the wine auctions, a $2000 donation to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club, the Yangtze River trip and anonymous donations to MPs.
“I have no reason to inflate this number. It’s as best as I can remember,” said Liu.
The Herald’s back-tracking continued when this editorial appeared on 27 June 2014;
.
.
The editorial bluster continued until the un-named author came to the salient point;
“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.”
On-line public commentary following the editorial was scathing and in no mood to be mollified by this Clayton’s apology (if that is what it was intended to be). No wonder it was eventually closed down.
3. Press Council Complaint & Consequence
On 5 July 2014, I laid a complaint with the Press Council regarding the nature and content of the Herald stories. The complaint referred to several Herald articles omitting to mention Cunliffe’s letter being eleven years old; that no evidence had been presented to support Liu’s claim he had paid $15,000 for a book , nor $100,000 for a bottle of wine; that the Herald had not released the full text of Liu’s signed statement, and other examples of misreporting and lack of evidence.
(Full text of complaint here.)
On 21 August 2014, the Press Council deliberations yielded it’s decision.
Despite the complaint against the Herald being dismissed by the Press Council (hardly a surprise), it is noteworthy that the Council did issue one admonishment against the paper;
We accept in part the criticism from both Mrs Lyons and Mr Macskasy regarding the reliance on information from Mr Liu only, including his signed statement. It can correctly be distinguished from the Cunliffe letter released under the Official Information Act. We do not consider there is any obligation on a newspaper to publish it in full. While they were entitled to rely on such a statement as part of the factual basis when reporting the paper failed to adhere to a basic tenet of journalism…the need to have confirmation from a second source.
In fact, the entire series of stories emanated from just one man: Donghua Liu. Not only was the businessman’s story uncorroborated, but the Herald was reluctantly forced to concede that several of Liu’s “facts” were simply incorrect.
There is also the strange involvement of Cameron Slater, Russell Beaumont, and other sundry assorted right-wing characters, who were party to the Herald’s story.
On top of which was the even stranger fact that the Herald’s OIA request (made by Jared Savage on 16 June 2014) into Donghua Liu’s immigration was processed within 48 hours – a feat unheard of when it comes to Official Information requests.
(Full text of Immigration NZ letter here. Full story here.)
4. The Herald’s Promises of more “evidence” and “details” to come
Part of the Herald’s defence was that the Donghua Liu investigation was on-going and more revelations were to follow. The following comments by the Herald’s then-editor-in-chief promised the following;
Tim Murphy, email to Frank Macskasy, 27 June 2014
“We are continuing to investigate the payments from Donghua Liu and the circumstances of his various migration approvals.”
Tim Murphy, email to Frank Macskasy, 4 July 2014
“We fully expect further details to come will show the Herald’s earlier reporting to have, as we have known throughout, been accurate and soundly based.”
Murphy made similar commitments to the NZ press Council as part of their defence against complaints in the handling of Dongthua Liu’s allegations;
Tim Murphy, email, 7 July 2014 & NZ Herald statement to NZ Press Council, 15 July 2014;
“We stand by our report that a book was purchased and expect further ‘evidence’ of this to be made public shortly.”
Tim Murphy, ibid
“You seem to have accepted without question MP Rick Barker’s claim he attended only a staff party in China. We do not accept this and expect further details of the hospitality for him and others in China to be revealed in due course.”
To date, no further evidence, nor details, have been forth-coming.
I wrote to Shayne Currie, the Herald’s recently-appointed editor, asking;
It is now one year on from the Donghua Liu Affair, which ranged from 18 June 2014, to 27 June 2014, when several allegations were made regarding David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, and the NZ Labour Party.
At least one of those allegations (a so-called “$100,000 bottle of wine”) was retracted by your paper. Another allegation, of a so-called “$15,000 book signed by Helen Clark”, was never proven.Two complaints to the NZ Press Council were, for the most part, not upheld, though your paper was roundly criticised for sole reliance on only one source (Donghua Liu), and not confirmed from a second source. The Press Council stated in it’s findings that this was a failure of a basic tenet of journalism.
On several occassions, the then-editor of the Herald, Tim Murphy, stated that the investigation into this story was on-going and expected further details and evidence to emerge.
I refer you to statements made by Murphy;[See statements above by Tim Murphy]
As it has now been exactly one year since the Donghua Liu Affair, are you able to advise me as to what further “details” and “evidence” the Herald’s “continuing investigations” have uncovered?I will be seeking comment from other ‘players’ in this story, and felt it fair that I seek your comments as well, to present some degree of balance.I will be happy to present any comment you wish to make, verbatim.
As this story is published, Currie has not replied to my emailed questions.
5. A response from Labour’s Mike Williams
Former Labour Party President, Mike Williams, was more forthcoming when I questioned him on the Donghua Liu Affair. On 8 July, Williams told me;
“I was incensed by this. Because if the Labour Party had picked up $150,000 I would’ve known about it.”
This was all founded on bullshit. There were no donations from Donghua Liu. Not a cent.”
Williams was scathing of the manner of the Herald’s reporting of Donghua Liu’s claims;
“This story was just total bullshit, it was front page bullshit. They kind of withdrew from it, but it did damage the Labour Party at a time when it didn’t need much damage.
There’s gotta be a withdrawal or apology, I would have thought.”
6A. Conclusion
In a previous chapter of the Donghua Liu Affair (The OIA Gambit), ‘Hercules’ and I wrote;
What appears to be an orchestrated Beehive plot to dig dirt for throwing at Labour leader, David Cunliffe, ahead of a crucial parliamentary debate is revealed in a paper trail linking Immigration Minister, Michael Woodhouse, and the Parliamentary Press Gallery offices of the New Zealand Herald and TV3.
Hatched in National’s anticipation of a hammering in a debate on Wednesday 18 June (note the date) prompted by the resignation of ACT leader, John Banks, the plot was pivotal on having Cunliffe first deny helping Auckland businessman Donghua Liu with his residency application – before producing an eleven-year-old letter from Immigration’s files as proof that the Opposition leader was either a liar or had suffered serious brain fade.
On its own, the letter was innocuous…
…What is certain is that the real reason for the urgent 48-hour response to the OIA requests was to ensure that the Cunliffe letter was in the public domain by midday on Wednesday 18 June.
The same day that the government was facing a torrid questioning by the Opposition after the conviction and resignation of ACT MP, John Banks. A government that desperately needed a credible diversion. Relying on another beneficiary-bashing story from Paula Bennett was simply not tenable.
This was the a Dirty Trick of the highest order, involving an eleven year old letter; complicit media looking for another easy sensational news story; Ministers with connections to right wing bloggers; and journalists who run with the pack instead of asking questions that might yield real answers.
As they say in law enforcement circles; Motive. Means. Opportunity.
The government had all three.
This was the real story behind the Donghua Liu Affair.
However, there is more to it than that.
The motivation of the National government to smear and destroy David Cunliffe’s credibility is fairly obvious. With National facing an election later that year (2014), a resurgent Labour Party led by a new leader was the last thing they needed.
But there were two other players in this Affair…
6B. Donghua Liu
As I wrote in a previous chapter on this Affair (The impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign), the Herald came into possession of the first of two statements by Donghua Liu (neither of which have ever been released publicly, despite ongoing demands for transparency);
The date on Liu’s “signed statement” – 3 May – was only two days after Maurice Williamson’s enforced resignation after being found out attempting to influence a police investigation into Liu’s assault on two women.
The close timing of Williamson’s resignation and the date on Liu’s “signed statement” was a critical mistake on the part of those responsible for this smear campaign. It ties the two events together. I believe Key’s senior media strategist, Jason Ede, and right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater were probably involved.
The motive for the smear campaign was an act of utu, in retaliation for Labour prosecuting revelations against Maurice Williamson.
Interestingly, the Herald political reporter who wrote the Donghua Liu stories made a passing reference to Maurice Williamson as well, in an email to me dated 17 July, last year;
It all started with queries about his citizenship while the Nats were in power, against advice, specifically after Maurice Williamson writing an email in support in 2010…it eventually led to Mr Williamson’s resignation as a Minister for intervening in a police matter and the discovery that Liu was also lobbying Immigration Minister Woodhouse to change policy. – Jared Savage, email, Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:27 PM
From several media reports, it seemed clear that the relationship between Donghua Liu and Maurice Williamson was more than just a formal MP-Constituent relationship. They appeared to be good friends;
.
Liu, who has close ties with the minister, was arrested in December last year following a domestic violence incident… He had previously lobbied his colleagues to grant Liu citizenship against official advice. Liu’s citizenship was approved in 2010 by then Internal Affairs Minister Nathan Guy. He later made a $22,000 donation to the National Party. – TV3, 1 May 2014
.
“National MP Maurice Williamson lobbied a ministerial colleague to give New Zealand citizenship “as fast as possible” to a wealthy businessman – then conducted the ceremony himself the day after citizenship was granted against the recommendation of officials.The urgent VIP ceremony, believed to have taken place in Mr Williamson’s electoral office, is another close link between the former Minister and millionaire property developer Donghua Liu, who has donated $22,000 to the National Party previously. – NZ Herald, 1 May 2014
.
He [Maurice Williamson] later revealed that Liu owned a bach next to his family’s house at Pauanui, and the MP had used the property and performed minor repair work on the house when Liu was in China.“I’m a fan of being a handyman and the house was good to be able to use while we were doing it,” he told Campbell Live.Mr Williamson recommended the neighbouring holiday home to Liu when it went on the market. He also said he had eaten dinner with Liu as part of a group five or six times. – Otago Daily Times, 2 May 2014
.
When Williamson resigned his ministerial portfolio on 1 May 2014, Donghua Liu no doubt noticed his friend’s misfortune, and conveniently supplied his statement to the NZ Herald three days later.
Donghua Liu could not have been too happy at the downfall of his ‘mate’, and was eager to exact revenge against the Labour leader, David Cunliffe.
One of the few remaining questions is; who put him (Liu) up to it? Who could have prompted a migrant businessman, with poor command of the english language, to make a formal statement, and ensure it made it’s way to the Herald’s offices?
It had to be someone well-connected with the National government; who had experience with ‘dirty tricks’; links with media; and who has/had a working relationship with right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater (who, don’t forget, published Jared Savage’s Donghua Liu story on Whaleoil one and a half hours before it appeared on the Herald’s own website!).
I think we all know who fits that ‘job description‘.
6C. NZ Herald
If, as evidence indicates, the Donghua Liu story was a cunningly concocted smear-campaign run by the National Party to discredit David Cunliffe, they needed someone – a willing ‘patsy’ – to make the allegations of “hidden donations”. That man was Donghua Liu, loyal friend of disgraced Minister, Maurice Williamson.
They also needed a compliant media outlet who could be ‘tipped’ off about Cunliffe’s 2003 letter on behalf of Donghua Liu. That media outlet would be the NZ Herald. More specifically, Jared Savage, who has admitted to regular contact with right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater.
How did Herald Reporter, Jared Savage, know to lodge an OIA request on 16 June 2014 with Immigration Minister Woodhouse’s office, seeking, “Any correspondence, including emails, letters or queries, from any Members of Parliament in regards to Donghua Liu’s immigration status prior to 2005″.
Why was Savage’s OIA request granted within 48 hours – a feat unheard off when it come to this government responding to OIA requests by journalists, bloggers, members of the public, etc. (See: The OIA Gambit)?
Was the Herald knowingly complicit in a smear campaign against David Cunliffe?
This blogger thinks not.
In which case, what was the Herald’s involvement?
Simply put, National’s “black ops” team manufactured a story against Cunliffe using a twelve year old letter, and a bogus statement (note; it was not a signed, witnessed affidavit, which has greater legal standing than simply a signed statement) by a friend of Maurice Williamson – Donghua Liu.
Through Jared Savage, the Herald was offered an “exclusive”, despite having no corroborating evidence nor a second source to back up Liu’s claims – a fact pointed out by the Press Council as a critical mistake. Remember that the NZ Press Council, in it’s decision (see: The Press Council’s decision) on complaints laid against the Herald, stated;
While they were entitled to rely on such a statement [from Liu] as part of the factual basis when reporting the paper failed to adhere to a basic tenet of journalism…the need to have confirmation from a second source.
There could be no “second source”. Because it was all a concocted lie.
Whether or not the Herald’s editor at the time (Tim Murphy), Shayne Currie, or Jared Savage suspected that the Donghua Liu story was a pack of lies is moot.
What is indisputable is that the Herald was handed – on a plate – an exclusive story that ultimately aided in the destruction of David Cunliffe’s political career.
For the NZ Herald, that was the “pay off”; an exclusive story. They were not going to turn away from such a sensational story – especially when a competitor such as TV3 could run with it.
Shayne Currie and Tim Murphy may have been aware that Liu’s claims were bogus, but they were willing to sacrifice their journalistic integrity to throw caution to the wintry winds of Wellington’s politics and run with it anyway.
The fact that the Herald’s current editor, Shayne Currie, has not made any form of reply to my email indicates that the Donghua Liu Affair is a story that they would rather quietly ‘went away’.
It is a unusual when a media outlet will not defend it’s own and one has to ask the obvious question – why?
Because the Donghua Liu Affair, as reported by the Herald in June and July last year, was a fabrication from beginning to end.
Otherwise, where is the new ‘evidence’ and ‘details’ promised by then-editor, Tim Murphy? Like Liu’s claims, Murphy’s promises were empty.
.
Addendum1
Tim Murphy was given an opportunity to answer questions relating to the Donghua Liu Affair. A near-identical email to the one sent to Shayne Currie has not been responded to.
Addendum2
On 16 June this year – nearly the exact anniversary of the Herald publishing it’s first Donghua Liu story on 18 June 2014 – all domestic violence charges were dropped against Mr Liu.
.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
The Dim Post: June Polls – Barnsley Bill
Twitter: Shayne Currie @ShayneCurrieNZH
Whaleoil: BREAKING – David Cunliffe’s career, such as it was, is over [ UPDATED ]
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour Link – More to come
NZ Herald: Under-fire donor gave to Labour too
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3: Maurice Williamson resigns as minister
NZ Herald: Maurice Williamson conducted citizenship ceremony himself
Otago Daily Times: Williamson used Liu’s holiday home
NZ Herald: Editorial – Ministers and immigration shouldn’t mix
Fairfax media: Jason Ede still has Beehive access
NZ Herald: Jason Ede resigns from the National Party after Dirty Politics scandal
NZ Herald: Collins resigns – Jared Savage and Fran O’Sullivan respond
NZ Herald: Domestic violence charges against millionaire businessman dropped
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair: Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair: the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
The Donghua Liu Affair: Evidence of Collusion between the NZ Herald and Immigration NZ?
The Donghua Liu Affair: the Press Council’s decision
The Donghua Liu Affair: The OIA Gambit
The Donghua Liu Affair: The Players Revealed
The Donghua Liu Affair: One Year On
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 July 2015.
.
.
= fs =
Categories: Media, The Body Politic
David Cunliffe, Donghua Liu, Jared Savage, Mike Williams, NZ Herald, Press Council, Shayne Currie, Tim Murphy
How biased is the media? A Patrick Gower case study
29 November 2014
7 comments
.
.
.
.
Isn’t it interesting that Patrick Gower – who made his partisan feelings crystal clear on Twitter on 29 May with this extraordinary outburst;
“Lalia Harré – you make me feel sick by how you are rorting MMP http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Hone-and-Dotcoms-grubby-deal/tabid/1382/articleID/346334/Default.aspx#ixzz334vE4jKO Same goes for your pals Hone, Dotcom, Minto and Sykes.”
– is also the same one who interviewed Laila Harre on Saturday, 22 November, on TV3’s “The Nation”? What measure of neutrality did “The Nation’s” producer, Tim Watkin, believe that Gower possessed, to run that interview?
Quite simply, any reasonable individual would have arrived at the conclusion that Gower should have disqualified himself and the role given, instead, to the highly talented Lisa Owen.
Notice how Gower was very well behaved during the interview, when face-to-face with Harré?
But once Harré was off the set and he was with the panel (Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton), the gloves and mask came off and Gower’s vitriol issued forth;
“… She blamed Labour there, she blamed the Greens, she blamed the National Party, she blamed the media, she blamed Georgina Beyer, although she did say-“
“… I think there’s two words for what we saw over there, before and that’s called in denial. Hmmph!”
“… She’s not going to go in with the Greens, she’s betrayed them. Labour won’t have a a bar of her. No chance of Laila Harré coming back to Parliament. And that’s why you see this sort of denial from her. She’s got it horribly, horribly wrong and she still can’t admit it.”
It should be noted that neither Williams (an ex-Labour President) nor Hooton (a right-wing commentator) could possibly comment impartially on the Mana-Internet Alliance. Both Labour and the Right had a unified agenda to smash Mana-Internet at the election (See: 2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date). There was simply no attempt at balance with the panelists or the the host-interviewer (Gower).
What is abundantly clear is that Gower seemed to lack a certain inner fortitude to say the things he did to the panelists, to Harré’s face.
This was part of an ongoing, unrelenting onslaught against the Left. The same dirty media that saw right-wing, self-professed “media personalities” appointed to host political debates, despite public opposition and cries of partisanship;
.
.
There was good reason for public disquiet over Mike Hosking hosting one of the election leadership debates. His political allegiance was already well known;
.
Hosking: “As I see it, all things considered we are doing pretty bloody well. We box above our weight.
“We have bright prospects for the future, so long as you keep them [National] in Government.”
An example of media bias was clearly shown over the issue of two holidays by two party Leaders. As I wrote on 24 July;
The recent non-story on David Cunliffe’s three day holiday should be proof-positive that the mainstream media (msm) is fixated on pumping out as many “bad news” reporting as can be generated by a headline-seeking; advertising-driven; lazy corporate-media system.
We’re all aware that whilst Cunliffe took a three day break (I’m surprised he bothered to come back, instead of telling this country to go get f- – – – – !), our illustrious Dear Leader was off on a ten-day holiday, sunning his pale, $55 million arse, on a Maui beach in Hawaii.
Whilst the media did indeed mention that salient fact (albeit in passing), it was taken as a given that the leader of a party polling 50%-plus in the polls is entitled to a holiday.
Meanwhile, the leader of a mid-twenties-polling (?) Party is – it was hinted – not entitled to any such break.
The subtext was blindingly obvious; success breeds reward. In this case, a warm, sunny Hawaiian beach.
And failure means you don’t deserve a single damn thing, so get-back-to-work-peasant!
(See: When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays)
Perhaps the most outrageous, recent political “hatchet job” was the Herald’s character assassination scheme launched against David Cunliffe, using unproven (and later discredited) allegations from immigrant-businessman, Donghua Liu. The story behind Liu’s shonkey allegations; a 13 year old letter; and information strategically released by National minister, Michael Woodshouse, to Herald and TV3 journos, was nothing less than a disturbing abuse of ministerial power and media influence. (See: The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed)
When a party leader continually receives bad press (eg; condemnation over taking a 3 day break; the colour of the scarf he wore; a manufactured “scandal” regarding a 13 year old letter, etc) what is the mainstream media telling this country?
At one stage the level of attacks against Cunliffe descended into pettiness and farce when, on TV3, on 24 July, TV3’s Tova O’Brien ran this report on their 6PM News bulletin, about Key’s face appearing – photo-shopped – on the cover of the “Rugby News“;
.
.
However, stuck at the very end of the video-version of the story, was this oddball, juvenile parting-quip by O’Brien;
“So once again the blue team gets one over the red team. Yes, it’s cringey, but it’s left Cunliffe looking whingey.”
(See: When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien)
As I pointed out on 30 July,
Despite the fact that the story was ostensibly about Key getting his face photo-shopped onto a magazine and scoring some free election-year publicity – a supposedly well-educated, “impartial” journo still managed to somehow insert a childish comment about David Cunliffe. That’s despite the fact that Cunliffe’s comments were much more restrained and measured than the criticism made by Winston Peters in the same video.
So there we have it, folks. Even when the story is about John Key – a silly little journo still managed to turn it into a swipe at David Cunliffe.
Such was the mainstream stream leading up to the election on 20 September.
Returning to Patrick Gower, there are three questions I would like to pose to him;
1. Why is it that Gower condemned the Internet-Mana alliance as “sickening” – but not the ACT-National deal in Epsom, with the same intensity?
2. Or the National-NZ First-Maori Party deal to endorse Labour’s Kelvin Davis over Hone Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau?
3. Why was Dotcom’s funding of Mana-Internet such a big deal worthy of condemnation – but millionaires funding National and ACT is barely noted, in passing, if at all?
Otherwise, Patrick, this is not impartial, intelligent journalism.
It’s not even close.
Postscript1 (Brick-bat)
Note to MSM journos, sub-editors (those remaining), current affairs/news producers, et al) – ok, we get the “Stuart Little” reference,
.
.
Ho, ho, ho.
But enough already.
It was funny for the first thirty seconds. Now it’s just lame.
Message to journos: don’t be lame. It’s not cool.
Postscript2 (Bouquet)
For an excellent interview with a political leader (whether Labour, National, Greens, whatever), check out TVNZ’s Q+A today (22/23 November), where veteran reporter/interviewer, Heather du Plessis-Allan interviewed new Labour Leader, Andrew Little. This is how an interview should be conducted; the host asks the questions; the guest is given time to respond, without interuption.
All TV/radio hosts take note.
.
References
Twitter: Patrick Gower
Pundit: Tim Watkin
TV3: Laila Harre stepping down as Internet Party leader
TV3: “The Nation” Panel – Patrick Gower, Mike Williams & Matthew Hooton
Fairfax Media: Labour claims Hosking’s biased
NZ Herald: Media – Hosking plugs car and Key
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
TV3: Stuart Little, leader of the Opposition?
TVNZ: Q+A 22/23 November
Previous related blogposts
Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien
2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
MSM under-mining of new Labour Leader already begun?
26 November 2014
Leave a comment
.
.
It did not take long.
In fact, on the same day that Andrew Little won the Labour leadership*, the first media reporter was already asking if he would be stepping down if Labour failed to lift in the all-important polls.
On Radio NZ’s Checkpoint, the usually uber-sensible, Mary Wilson asked these gormless questions of Andrew Little,
@ 4.35
Wilson: “And in terms of your accountability though, if at the end of 2016, there is no movement [in the polls] there is no change, what happens then?”
@ 4.47
Wilson: “Is there any point during the next few years where you will say, ‘Ok, this hasn’t worked; I haven’t done what I set out to achieve; I’m leaving’.”
@ 5.00
Wilson: “And if you’re not there by the end of 2016, would you step aside?”
Now bear in mind that Radio NZ is not part of the ratings-driven, advertising-revenue-chasing corporate MSM of this country – but still those questions were put to Little.
How long before the corporate MSM – sensing sensational headlines and potential advertising revenue – begin baying for blood and drafting stories which begin to portray Little in a negative light?
It was the relentless attacks on Cunliffe from all quarters of the MSM (including non-commercial Radio NZ) which contributed to under-mining his leadership in the eyes of the voting public.
The public’s perception of a political figure is determined largely by how he is portrayed by the media. Fairness and accuracy can play little part in reporting stories targetting a political figure. As the Donghua Liu Affair, in the NZ Herald showed with disturbing clarity, even a non-story can be spun in such a way as to totally destroy a man’s credibility and reputation.
Note: As an aside, in defending the Herald’s story on the 13 year old Donghua Liu-Cunliffe letter, Editor Tim Murphy stated in June this year (in an email to this blogger), that “We fully expect further details to come will show the Herald’s earlier reporting to have, as we have known throughout, been accurate and soundly based“. Nothing further has been produced by the Herald to back up it’s assertions since it was forced to make retractions on 25 June.
The Donghua Liu Affair was part of an ongoing, targetted, smear campaign against David Cunliffe. The non-story, involving a 13 year old letter; a non-existent $100,000 bottle of wine; and an alleged, yet-to-be-discovered, $15,000 book, painted Cunliffe as untrustworthy, and the Labour Party as dodgy.
The new Labour leader will have to keep his wits about him and use every media-related connection and employ the best possible media minders to counter an MSM that can no longer be trusted to report the basic truth. With the likes of Patrick Gower and Mike Hosking competing to be the “baddest bad asses” on the Media Block, accuracy and truth play third-fiddle behind egos (#1) and ratings (#2).
TV3’s Patrick Gower has already had a ‘go’ at Little’s victory, referring to the democratic selection process as “the great union ripoff”;
“It’s a backdoor takeover by the unions. Simply, Andrew Little would not be Labour leader without the unions. He is the unions’ man; Little is a union man, and the unions have got their man into Labour’s top job.”
Gower’s statement mentions “unions” five times in three short sentences. Which, when you think about it, is bizarre given that the Labour Party was born from the union movement in the first place**. Who did Gower think would lead Labour – someone from the Employers’ Federation? Business NZ? The Business Roundtable?
Silly little man pretending to be a political commentator.
The TV3 on-line article is bizarre in itself with TV3’s “Online Reporter”, Dan Satherley, reporting TV3’s Political Reporter, Patrick Gower’s, utterances. Journalists interviewing each other?
They just can’t help themselves. In an ‘Interstellar‘-quality vacuum of any meaningful news reporting, media-hacks like Gower will blather on about any silliness that enters their heads. Far be it for him to actually interview Andrew Little and ask him questions like;
What’s on your agenda if you become Prime Minister?
What’s your point-of-difference to National?
What do you hope to achieve, legislation-wise, in the First 100 Days of a government you lead?
You know, real questions that real journalists used to ask, in real interviews, with real people.
At the same time, the same brickbat used to beat the MSM around it’s collective head should be generously applied to the Labour Party hierarchy’s backside.
When Labour president Moira Coatsworth made this statement in the NZ Herald, congratulating Andrew Little;
Labour president Moira Coatsworth, who announced Mr Little’s victory, said he would lead a reinvigorated party into the 2017 election campaign.
“Andrew has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2017. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– it was the same gushing enthusiasm she voiced for David Cunliffe last year;
“The Labour Party congratulates David Cunliffe on his win. David has been elected by a robust and democratic process and has won on the first round with a clear majority. This gives him a strong mandate as leader and he has the full support of the Labour Party.
[…]
David Cunliffe has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2014. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– and before that, David Shearer, in 2011;
“I congratulate both David and Grant and look forward to working closely with them as we build towards a Labour victory in 2014.
David and Grant bring a fresh approach; a breadth of skills and a strong commitment to rebuild for a Labour win in 2014.”
The repetitive nature of Labour’s revolving-door leadership leaves the voting public scratching it’s collective head, wondering WTF?! As I blogged on 2 October;
If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.
And earlier, on 25 September, I wrote to the NZ Herald;
If Labour keeps changing it’s Leader after every defeat, then I put the following questions to them;
1. How will a Labour Leader gain experience, if they’re dumped every couple of years?
2. How can the public be expected to get to know a Labour Leader, and develop trust in that person, if their presence is fleeting and disappear before we get to know him/her?
3. How will a Labour Leader learn to handle victory, when s/he first won’t be allowed to understand defeat? Humility is learned in failure, not success.
I also pointed out in the same letter-to-the-editor;
The Greens have leaderships that are stable and long-term, irrespective of electoral success or failure. That is because the Party has faith and confidence in their leadership choices.
Even pro-National columnist for the NZ Herald, John Armstrong stated the obvious on 18 November;
“The public should warm to him. But that will take some time.”
Meanwhile, on the day that Andrew Little won the leadership contest, John Key made this astute observation;
“What this process has shown is that there are deep divisions within the party, they’re a long way away from agreeing with each other or even liking each other.
Andrew Little has the task of unifying a group of individuals who historically have shown they have very low levels of discipline.”
He has a point. Labour’s lack of internal discipline is in stark contrast to National’s public facade of unity. Both parties have their own factions – but National is the one that has succeeded in keeping in-fighting private and behind closed doors.
There is a weird irony to this. Labour is supposedly the party that espouses an ideology of collective action whilst National is the party of unfettered individualism.
Yet it is the Nats who work collectively and collegially for their number one goal: power. Any factional agitation and cat-spats for dominance is kept well away from the public and media gaze.
By contrast, Labour appears to be a party of rugged individualists that would make ACT look like an Ohu commune from the 1970s.
Labour could do well do learn from their rivals.
The alternative is more dissent and dis-unity within Labour; more leadership changes; and a National government stretching into the 2020s, with Max Key taking the reigns of Prime Ministership from his father, and assuming the dynastic role of “Little Leader”.
Personally, I prefer a “Little Leader” to emerge from a Labour-led government, and not a future National regime.
Andrew Little’s success will be our success as well.
.
* Disclaimer: This blogger is not a Labour Party member, nor has any preference who should be Leader of that party.
** Acknowledgement to Curwen Rolinson for his perception and pointing this out on his Facebook page.
.
References
Radio NZ: Little man for the job of Labour’s big rebuild
Radio NZ Checkpoint: Little says narrowness of his win not a problem (audio)
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3 News: Gower – Little’s victory ‘the great union ripoff’
NZ Herald: ‘He has the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders’ – Andrew Little elected Labour leader
Interest.co.nz: David Cunliffe wins Labour leadership contest, defeating Grant Robertson and Shane Jones
Scoop Media: Labour Party President congratulates new leadership team
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – Andrew Little’s first job – drown out Winston Peters
MSN News: Labour is still divided – Key
Te Ara Encyclopedia: Communes and communities
Facebook: Curwen Rolinson
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
24 September 2014
10 comments
.
.
– Special investigation by Frank Macskasy & ‘Hercules‘
Speculation that the Beehive office of Immigration Minister, Michael Woodhouse, was behind the release of a letter linking Labour leader, David Cunliffe, with controversial Chinese businessman, Donghua Liu, is supported by Twitter chatter linking Herald editor, Shayne Currie, with Cameron Slater’s Whale Oil blog.
“Nothing to see here” Currie’s boss, Tim Murphy, tweeted on 19 June in response to questions about Immigration NZ’s speedy release the previous day of the now infamous Cunliffe-Donghua Liu 2003 letter to his investigations editor, Jared Savage.
“We seek info, public service tells govt and denies us info. We refine request and get letters. We publish. Pretty standard.”
But there was nothing “standard” about the handling of this OIA request. Made at lunchtime on Monday June 16 it produced a response — which usually takes at least 20 working days — within 48 hours. Plucked from a file and previously withheld on privacy grounds, the 11-year-old letter was immediately put to use by National’s frontbenchers in the debating chamber and by the Parliamentary press gallery in the corridors to discredit Cunliffe and undermine his leadership of Labour’s caucus.
Although just a routine check on progress being made on Donghua Liu’s residency application, signed by Cunliffe as New Lynn MP in March 2003, the letter was touted as evidence of support and advocacy for the controversial Chinese businessman.
For the Herald, it lent credibility to its investigation into allegations that Liu had made big donations to the Labour Party.
Jared Savage’s investigation had included a request on May 8 for all information that Immigration NZ held on Donghua Liu. After taking three weeks to decide to withhold everything on his file on privacy grounds, the ministry sat on that decision for another three weeks before suddenly agreeing to release it to Mr Savage at 8.59AM on Monday 16 June.
Although no explanation was given for the sudden u-turn it is most likely that the potential for extracting maximum political advantage from releasing the Cunliffe/Donghua Liu letter became apparent over the preceding weekend.
The resignation of ACT leader John Banks as an MP had taken effect on the Friday (13 June). The filling of the vacancy created in Epsom required a special debate on whether to hold a by- election or wait for the general election on September 20. Gerry Brownlee decided to get it over with, scheduling it for Wednesday afternoon following the weekly General Debate. That meant National faced a torrid afternoon on Wednesday 18 June as Opposition parties combined to hang the Government’s dirty washing all around the debating chamber.
A diversion would be handy.
First, the response to Mr Savage’s May 8 OIA request had to be cleared away and replaced by a fresh request targeted more precisely at the Cunliffe/Donghua Liu letter. Mr Savage obliged with an email seeking “any correspondence, including emails, letters or queries, from an Members of Parliament in regards to Donghua Liu’s immigration status prior to 2005.” The email was sent at 1.04pm on the Monday and asked for the request to be treated urgently because of “the public interest in this case.”
Just over an hour later, at 2.11pm, a remarkably similar request arrived from TV3’s political reporter, Brook Sabin;
“We’d like to know if any Labour MPs lobbied for Donghua Liu’s residency back in 2005 . . . Cheers.”
A growing army of managers, business advisors, comms people and consultants went straight to work on co-ordinating responses to the two requests. Ironically, although TV3 lodged their request sixty seven minutes after the Herald, Sabin was to scoop Savage by three minutes when the 2003 Cunliffe letter was released just under forty eight hours later at 12.49PM on Wednesday 18 June.
Twitter chatter in the hour leading up to the letter’s release reveals a small network of journalists and right-wing bloggers who knew it was coming. They had their stories already written and were waiting impatiently to hit “send”.
12.10pm: Herald editor, Shayne Currie, starts the count down on Twitter: “Tick, tick, tick . . . keep an eye on @nzherald #scoop.”
.
.
The 2003 Cunliffe-Liu letter has not yet been released at this point. No one outside of Immigration NZ and Minister Woodhouse are supposedly aware of it’s existence. It would not be released for another thirty nine minutes.
At exactly the same moment, an unidentified staff member in the Immigration Minister’s Beehive office in Wellington emails across the Parliamentary complex to Cunliffe’s office with a heads-up. Two documents, Cunliffe’s 2003 letter and a similar one sent five months earlier from Labour’s Te Atatu MP, Chris Carter, are to be released to the media “around 1pm”.
12.12pm: Meanwhile, “Pete” is getting impatient. Described in his Twitter profile as “a fluffer, researcher, reporter, journalist, moderator and deputy editor” for Whale Oil Beef Hooked, “Pete” tweets back at Currie: “We’ve been waiting. Get on with it. #bloodyembargoes.”
.
.
12.23pm “Pete” is missing lunch. He asks @Inventory2 [Wanganui right-wing blogger and National Party member, Tony Stuart] and Currie if he has enough time to make himself a sandwich;
.
.
12.28pm: Currie tells sandwich-seeking “Pete” to “Take your Herald mobile app.”
.
.
12.30pm: Back in Wellington, ministry staff are racing to get the letters to the minister’s office. An area manager in Visa Services emails 10 colleagues with the news that a copy of the OIA response to Sabin’s request has been sent to the minister’s office.
12.39pm: The Visa Services area manager reports that he’s “just been advised that the Ministerial consultation has been completed so we will proceed to release.”
12.42pm: The same area manager then emails 10 colleagues to report that the consultation process has been completed and the letters are being released. “I have also asked . . . when we can release the Brook Sabin OIA.”
12.49pm: A business advisor in the ministry’s “Operations Support” team emails scans of the signed response and the two letters to Jared Savage at the Herald. At this point the 2003 Cunliffe and 2002 Carter letters ‘officially’ become public.
12.53pm: Sabin posts a scan of the Cunliffe letter on TV3’s website with a story quoting extensively from it. His story appear four minutes after ImmigrationNZ release the 2003 Cunliffe and 2002 Carter letters to Savage.
12.55pm: “Pete” checks in. He’s had lunch and he’s hot to post the story he’s already written after hearing from Whale Oil. Currie gets the green light and, obviously unaware that the Herald has already been scooped by TV3, tweets “Big political story breaking now . . . what David Cunliffe knew and said about Donghua Liu.”
.
.
.
12.57pm: Cameron Slater posts excerpts from Savage’s story on his Whale Oil blog along with a transcript from a media briefing the previous day on Labour’s KiwiSaver policy when Sabin’s TV3 colleague, Tova O’Brien, asked Cunliffe four questions about Donghua Liu.
12.59pm: Blogger Keith Ng posts the Question and Answer transcript on Twitter, describing it as a “wicked sick burn.”
1.00pm: The Herald’s veteran political correspondent, John Armstrong, posts a comment on the Herald’s website saying Cunliffe “is in deep political trouble. So deep that his resignation as Labour’s leader may now be very much in order”. Armstrong’s column is written and published on-line eleven minutes after Savage is emailed the 2003 Cunliffe and 2002 Carter letters.
1.46pm: Parliamentary Press Gallery accuse Cunliffe of lying and and being a hypocrite in 8-minute “stand-up” on his way into the debating chamber.
2.00pm: Cunliffe arrives in chamber, met by jeering from National benches. Ministers use the 2003 Cunliffe-Liu letter to attack the Labour leader’s credibility. Two of them (English and Woodhouse) quote directly from TV3’s Question and Answer transcript from the previous day.
On the following day, Thursday 19 June . . .
8.04pm: Herald political editor, Audrey Young, in New York with the prime minister, reports that Key admitted knowledge of the Cunliffe/Donghua Liu letter for some weeks. She says Cunliffe’s denials that he wrote “any such letter” has “thrown his leadership into crisis.”
5.14pm: Herald deputy political editor, Claire Trevett, and political reporter, Adam Bennett, report that Woodhouse had confirmed that his office had informed the prime minister’s office of the letter’s existence within a few days of learning of it on 9 May, the day after Savage lodged his first OIA request — the first of three conflicting accounts from Woodhouse.
Four conclusions
1. This was no ordinary scoop. This was a political dirty trick with journalists as willing participants when they should have been exposing it for what it was. Links between political operatives, bloggers and journalists are inevitable and revealed. Ultimately the credibility of mainstream news depends on its objectivity, independence and accuracy.
2. While the last-minute scramble to publish the letter before 1pm on the Wednesday depended on its release to the Herald’s investigations editor at 12.49pm, there is no record of its release to TV3’s political reporter. There is no paper trail, except a few references in internal emails. If it didn’t come from the ministry, it must have come from the minister.
3. The production and circulation of the Question and Answer transcript, required to support the — false — claim that Cunliffe had lied or suffered serious memory loss, remains a mystery. Blogger Keith Ng’s instant judgment on it as a “wicked sick burn” is more than just a smart turn of phrase.
4. Nicky Hager’s chapter on the Cunliffe/Donghua letter in ‘Dirty Politics’ refers to a blogger called “Barnsley Bill”, who – on the day before the Cunliffe-Liu story “broke” on 18 June in the Herald – made this cryptic remark on Danyl McLauchlan’s blog, “The Dim Post“;
Within 24 hours the poll are going to be the least of David Cunliffes problems.
Keep an eye on the herald website, we are about to see pledge card theft relegated to second place as the biggest labour funding scandal.Comment by Barnsley Bill — June 17, 2014 @ 10:21 am
Followed the next day with this;
Pascals Bookie..
There ya go. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276510
Boom.
Now wait for the 100k bottle of wine to dropComment by Barnsley Bill — June 18, 2014 @ 1:02 pm
“Barnsley Bill’s” reference to “the 100k bottle of wine” was made before the Herald published allegations of Liu spending $100,000 on a bottle of wine to the Labour Party. (Allegations which have since been re-tracted by the Herald.)
Subsequent questions put to “Barnsley Bill” have yielded no sensible answers, and his/her responses have been evasive. (Ref.)(Ref.)(Ref.)(Ref.)
Maintaining his cryptic game-playing, “Barnsley Bill” referred on “The Daily Blog” to “look to Kerikeri for the leak” – which he pointedly repeated. Kerikeri is in the Northland Electorate. Northland is National MP, Mike Sabin’s electorate.
Mike Sabin is TV3 journalist, Brook Sabin’s father.
These are the people who knew about the 2003 Cunliffe letter before it was made public under OIA requests on 18 June. Those OIA requests were ‘smoke-screens’ as TV3, NZ Herald, and Whaleoil already had the documents, or had been informed of their content.
Those letters were provided by the Office of the Minister for Immigration.
Under Savage’s OIA request there was a deliberate, pointed paper-trail trail by Ministry officials. No doubt the civil servants involved had an idea what their Minister was up to, and wanted plausible deniability in case any investigation resulted. By contrast, no such paper trail exists to explain how Brook Sabin obtained his copy of the 2003 Cunliffe letter. Minister Woodhouse was clumsy.
This could have come directly from the Minister’s office.
As the Twitter discussion and “Barnsley Bill’s” cryptic, prescient, comments indicate, there were several people “in the loop” to what was clearly a calculated, planned, – if rushed – political trap and public smear campaign. Clearly, these people did not expect anyone to notice their public conversation.
Organised from a Minister’s office; with involvement by Cameron Slater, and with TV3 and NZ Herald complicity, David Cunliffe walked into that trap.
The truth is only now coming out.
Put the whole Twitter conversation together, and it is abundantly obvious that those involved knew that the story was coming out prior to the Ministry releasing the 2003 Cunliffe and 2002 Carter letters.
Herald Editor, Shane Currie certainly had fore-warning.
.
.
.
.
.
Acknowledgement
Appreciation to ‘Hercules‘ for providing information and filling in the gaps. Without your in-put, this story would never have come it.
.
References
Wikipedia: Shayne Curry
Document Cloud: David Cunliffe-Liu-Immigration NZ 2003 letter
Document Cache: Jared Savage OIA request 16 June 2014
Document Cache: Jared Savage OIA request declined 8 May 2014
Parliament Hansards: Daily debates – Volume 699, Week 75 – Wednesday, 18 June 2014
TV3: Cunliffe’s links to Liu (see video)
NZ Herald: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
Document Cache: Jared Savage OIA request extension-approved 16 June 2014 8.59AM
Radio NZ: John Banks to resign from Parliament
Document Cache: Jared Savage – Immigration NZ – new OIA request – 16 June 1.04PM
Document Cache: Brook Sabin – TV3 – Immigration NZ – OIA request – 16 June 2.11PM
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
Document Cache: Release of OIA to Jared Savage – covering email – 18 June 2014 – 12.49PM
Document Cache: Chris Carter – letter – 3 October 2002
Twitter: Pete – 12.12PM
Twitter: Pete – 12.23PM
Twitter: Shayne Currie – 12.28PM
Wanganui Chronicle: Wanganui man outed in Hager’s book
Document Cache: ImmigrationNZ Area Manager to 10 colleagues – 12.30PM
Document Cache: Immigration NZ – 18 June – 12.39PM
Document Cache: Immigration NZ – 18 June – 12.42PM
Twitter: Pete – 12.55PM
Twitter: Shayne Curry – 12.55PM
Twitter: Shayne Currie @ShayneCurrieNZH
Whaleoil: BREAKING – David Cunliffe’s career, such as it was, is over [ UPDATED ]
TV3: Tova O’Brien’s four questions to David Cunliffe, 17 June
Twitter: Keith Ng –
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour Link – More to come
NZ Herald: National denies dirty tricks campaign against Cunliffe
The Dim Post: June Polls – Barnsley Bill
The Dim Post: Entities – Barnsley Bill
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
The Daily Blog: EXCLUSIVE: Was the Donghua Liu Affair another example of Dirty Politics?
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair: Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair: the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
The Donghua Liu Affair: Evidence of Collusion between the NZ Herald and Immigration NZ?
The Donghua Liu Affair: the Press Council’s decision
The Donghua Liu Affair: The OIA Gambit
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 September 2014 as “The Donghua Liu Affair – how the NZ Herald played their part in #dirtypolitics”
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair: The OIA Gambit
16 September 2014
5 comments
.
.
– Frank Macskasy & ‘Hercules’
What appears to be an orchestrated Beehive plot to dig dirt for throwing at Labour leader, David Cunliffe, ahead of a crucial parliamentary debate is revealed in a paper trail linking Immigration Minister, Michael Woodhouse, and the Parliamentary Press Gallery offices of the New Zealand Herald and TV3.
Hatched in National’s anticipation of a hammering in a debate on Wednesday 18 June (note the date) prompted by the resignation of ACT leader, John Banks, the plot was pivotal on having Cunliffe first deny helping Auckland businessman Donghua Liu with his residency application – before producing an eleven-year-old letter from Immigration’s files as proof that the Opposition leader was either a liar or had suffered serious brain fade.
On its own, the letter was innocuous. A routine inquiry seeking an estimate of the time required to process the application, the letter was signed by Cunliffe as the MP for New Lynn and dated 11 April 2003. It sat in a file until May 9 this year when Immigration officials in Visa Services began working on an Official Information Act (OIA) request received the previous day from the Herald’s investigations editor, Jared Savage – and subsequently declined;
.
.
Savage’s OIA request resulted only in the release of a brief, and somewhat pointless, Media Response to Radio NZ, dated 13 March 2014. This sole document gave a date when Donghua Liu’s business migration application was approved, and referred to a previous application being declined;
.
.
All other material was denied to him, ostensibly under privacy concerns.
Meanwhile, John Key’s Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson, confirmed that the Prime Minister’s office was made aware of the existence of the letter on the weekend of the 10th/11th May of this year;
.
.
Although deciding to withhold the whole file, including the letter, under the privacy clause in Section 9(2)(a) of the OIA, Visa Services sat on their response until, without any obvious reason, they advised Savage of their decision first-thing on the morning of Monday 16 June. Four hours later, on the same Monday, Savage emailed a fresh, more specific “Urgent OIA Request” for correspondence from MPs supporting Donghua Liu’s residency bid prior to 2005.
Jared Savage confirmed this to me in an email, on 17 July;
I initially asked for his entire residency file under the OIA on May 8. I note that the next day Minister Woodhouse asked for the file.
I was declined the entire file on privacy grounds on June 16. As I was really only interested in whether MPs were involved in his residency bid, I refined my request to ask for any correspondence from MPs because this is clearly in the public interest.
I specifically mentioned prior to 2005 because this is when Mr Liu was granted residency, against advice. There would not be any correspondence after he gained residency.
Unfortunately, it was clumsily worded because Immigration officials interpreted the word prior to exclude 2005 in the response. I then lodged a further OIA request which revealed Mr O’Connor intervened 3 times in the lead up to residency being granted – including waiving the English language criteria – the day before the 2005 election.
[…]
Coming back to the June 16 request, two days later, I received the letters. I have no idea why Immigration released it so quickly. Probably because they had already processed my earlier request of June 16 so the file was available, but you’d have to ask Immigration.
Savage’s OIA request on 16 June;
.
.
Savage received this response two days later, on 18 June – and this time his request was treated more favourably;
.
.
The timing of the above release is critical to this Affair.
A similar request followed an hour later at 2.11PM, on the same day (Monday), from Brook Sabin, TV3 political reporter and son of National MP, Mike Sabin;
“Hello,
We’d like to know if any Labour MPs lobbied for Donghua Liu’s residency application back in 2005?
Also, can we please request under the OIA:
All briefing notes, correspondence and emails regarding Donghua Liu’s residency applications
Cheers”
Both requests were sent straight to the “OIA team” for processing.
The next morning, on Tuesday, at a media briefing on Labour’s Kiwisaver policy, Sabin’s TV3 gallery colleague, Tova O’Brien, asked Cunliffe four questions about his relationship with Donghua Liu. A transcript of the exchange (below) was published the next day (Wednesday) in identical format in several places simultaneously with the released letter, and was used by two National ministers to attack Cunliffe in the debating chamber that afternoon.
This was David Cunliffe’s Q & A to reporters on Tuesday 17 June – broadcast the following day on Wednesday 18 June. Again, the dates are critical;
.
.
Q: Do you recall ever meeting Liu?
A: I don’t recall ever meeting him, no.
Q: Did you have anything to do with the granting of his permanent residency?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Did you advocate on his behalf at all?
A: Nope.
Q:Were you aware of any advice against granting him permanent residency?
A: Not to my recollection.
Those questions – whether audio, video, or written, were generally not available until Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Cunliffe was confronted by the press gallery (Ibid) on his way to the chamber and accused several times of having lied the previous day. Just half an hour after being given a copy of the letter, which he’d forgotten about, and possibly underestimating its value to his opponents, the Opposition leader continued to insist that he never supported or advocated for Liu’s residency.
He eventually had to leave to ask the first question of the day which is to Bill English who is naturally keen to exploit the opportunity to dent Cunliffe’s credibility,
“I find it a lot easier to stand by my statements than that member does to stand by his . . . that member has been remarkably inconsistent (about donations) . . . that member, who seems to have trouble agreeing with himself.”
English then led National in the weekly general debate. “The reasons no one trusts him (Cunliffe) is this” he says before quoting directly from the transcript of TV3’s questions and answers on Tuesday. “Today, of course,” he continues, “we have the letter that he wrote advocating exactly for his permanent residency.”
Also quoting directly from the transcript, Immigration Minister, Michael Woodhouse, added an intriguing reference to a second letter, from Labour’s Te Atatu MP, Chris Carter.
.
.
Released by his office at the same time as Cunliffe’s it was totally overlooked by the media in their rush to crucify the Labour leader.
Immigration Minister Woodhouse said;
“But do you know what? He (Cunliffe) is not alone.”
The Immigration Minister then quoted from the Carter letter, sent five month’s prior to Cunliffe’s, seeking “any consideration that could be given to expediting” Liu’s residency application and reporting that he had deposited $3 million in a bank account with a view to purchasing a building for redevelopment.
The fact that the letter identified the bank as the ASB in Auckland did not deter Woodhouse from getting in a cheap shot. “I hope it was not the Labour Party’s bank account,” he said, concluding:
“That was Mr Chris Carter, on behalf of Mr Dongua Liu. In fact, the letter was from Carter’s electorate agent and begins, like the Cunliffe letter, “I have been approached by a local constituent . . .”
Woodhouse was followed in the debate by Health Minister, Tony Ryall, who also spent most of his five-minute speech attacking the Opposition leader;
“So here is Mr Cunliffe, who only a few hours ago denied he had ever met Mr Liu and said the Labour Party never got any donations from Mr Liu. And here we have today a letter from Mr Cunliffe making representations on behalf of Mr Liu. It is just not consistent with what he has been saying previously. It is hugely embarrassing for Mr Cunliffe and for the Labour Party.”
Joining his frontbench colleagues, National’s Paul Goldsmith, said Labour Party members were “hanging their heads in shame.” He added;
“It is very interesting to see John Armstrong and many of the commentators saying right now, right here today, that Mr Cunliffe is in deep trouble and Labour is in deep trouble. It is a beautiful thing to watch. Thank you.”
Goldsmith was referring to the Herald’s political correspondent, John Armstrong’s column, that Cunliffe might have to resign, a piece (see below) consequently judged by many to be totally over the top. Unsurprisingly, many have called for Armstrong’s retirement.
The plan by National ministers to embarrass Cunliffe and to deflect from a potentially damaging debate on Wednesday however became derailed when the timing of the OIA releases went unpredictably awry.
The office of the Leader of the Labour Party was first advised of the planned OIA release of the two letters (Chris Carter’s 3 October 2002 and David Cunliffe’s 11 April 2003) at 12.10PM on Wednesday 18 June;
.
.
Ostensibly, the OIA public release was to take place one hour later.
Instead, the OIA release to Jared Savage took place only thirty-nine minutes later, at 12.49PM;
.
.
Sabin’s story appeared on TV3’s website at 12.53pm – four minutes after the OIA release was emailed to Jared Savage, and by Cameron Slater on his Whale Oil blog, eight minutes later, at 12.57PM;
.
.
.
Another three minutes passed before John Armstrong declared Cunliffe to be “in deep political trouble; so deep that his resignation as Labour’s leader may now be very much in order”. It is possible that Armstrong was relying on the copy attached to the response to TV3’s OIA request, sent to the Minister at 12.30PM and presumably released directly from his office to Brook Sabin.
However, there is no documentation to that effect. So when and how did Brook Sabin obtain copies of David Cunliffe’s 11 April 2003 letter? It appears to have been released without the necessary “paper trail” as Emily Fabling, Executive Director of Immigration NZ stated at 1.31PM on 18 June, when referring to Savage’s OIA request;
“I have advised that the process [of releasing the information under the OIA request] is consistent with our usual procedures and the Act, we have had legal advice and understand the political sensitivity and complexity, and a discoverable paper trail, if required.”
Armstrong’s column was published at 1PM – just eleven minutes after Visa Services emailed a copy of the letter at 12.49PM to Jared Savage;
.
.
Kiwiblog published it’s story at 1.06PM;
.
.
Some very tight time frames involved in writing media and blog reports after the 12.49PM OIA release.
In several cases the time-frames were simply unfeasibly tight to receive; digest; write up meaningful stories; proof-read; check legalities; and upload them onto websites.
Now here is where the timing of the OIA releases and blog/media stories appearing takes a very strange twist.
As detailed above Cameron Slater (or someone purporting to be writing under his name) wrote this piece on his blog Whaleoil at 12.57PM;
Jared Savage reports:
David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
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.
And mentioned above, at 1:06PM on Wednesday 18 June David Farrar wrote on Kiwiblog;
Both refer to Jared Savage’s story in the NZ Herald, centering on the release of the David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
Except that Savage’s on-line story was not due to appear until 2.29PM;
.
.
So how did Slater and Farrar manage to refer to a story in their blogposts that had yet to be written and uploaded onto the NZ Herald website?
Ruling out time travel, there may be a very simple answer;
- As was outlined above by Wayne Eagleson, the government was aware of Cunliffe’s letter as early as 10/11 May 2014.
- An OIA request by Jared Savage was first declined – then expedited in almost a panic, in two days by Immigration NZ.
- Brook Sabin lodged a similar OIA request to Jared Savage. He appears to have received the information he requested – without a corresponding paper trail.
- Two right wing bloggers closely associated with National ministers, and who have been fed sensitive information in recent past, published blogposts referring to Jared Savage’s article – before that article was uploaded onto the Herald website.
- In a released email, Cameron Slater admitted to a close working relationship with Herald reporter, Jared Savage;
.
.
And where did this jpeg of Tova O’Brien’s questioning to David Cunliffe – and ending up on Whaleoil – come from;
.
.
Quite simply, the relationship and flow of information is a two-way process; journalists are constantly feeding information to Slater/Whaleoil (and to a lesser degree, Farrar/Kiwiblog).
It seems evident that Whaleoil and Kiwiblog jumped the gun in publishing their blog-stories, not waiting for Savage to first upload his on the Herald’s website. The result ended up with Farrar and Slater referencing Savage’s story that was still in the “future”.
As revealed with startling clarity in Nicky Hager’s book, “Dirty Politics“, the government is not above using right wing bloggers to release damaging information or mount smear campaigns against Opposition MPs in Parliament.
The media, always reluctant to admit mistakes for fear of denting their own credibility, were more than happy to carry on with the line that Cunliffe’s letter was “proof” of Labour’s links to Donghua Liu. And keen to help in any way he could, the Prime Minister, John Key, continued to hint that he knew more about Liu’s claims to have made donations to the Labour Party.
Next morning, the Herald’s political editor, Audrey Young, reported from New York that,
“Prime Minister John Key believes the (sic) Labour has a lot more than $15,000 in donations from wealthy Chinese political donor Donghua Liu. He also acknowledged he had known for some weeks that Labour leader David (sic) has written a letter supporting Mr Liu’s application for residency. The release of the letter yesterday in the face of denials from Mr Cunliffe that he wrote any such letter has thrown his leadership into crisis.”
Key’s admission that he had already known about the letter prompted three different and conflicting accounts from Woodhouse in response to questions about how and when he’d informed his prime minister about its existence.
As well as providing a fine working model of the media’s bias against Labour and the woeful state of the parliamentary press gallery, the handling of the Savage and Sabin OIA requests by the Immigration Service and its Minister raises some interesting questions:
1. Who told Visa Services to respond to Jared Savage’s May 8 request at 8.59am on Monday 16 June?
2. Who told Savage to make a fresh, more specific request, the same morning and copy it to the minister’s press secretary?
3. Who told Sabin to put in a request on June 16?
4. Who told Tova O’Brien to ask those questions on Tuesday 17 June?
5. Who made the transcript of the questions and answers and how was it circulated?
6. After deciding to withhold the Cunliffe letter for privacy reasons, why was it released so quickly and without any further discussion of the privacy aspect?
7. It took the minister less than 20 minutes to approve the release of the Cunliffe and Carter letters. Is this a record?
8. How was it possible for the letter to be published in so many places so quickly?
If you still don’t think there was something fishy going on, turn to page 131 of ‘Dirty Politics‘ where Nicky Hager records a comment on the ‘Dim-Post’ from “Barnsley Bill” (aka Cameron Slater acolyte, Russell Beaumont) responding to a Danyl McLauchlan blog about opinion polls:
“Within 24 hours the poll are going to be the least of David Cunliffes problems. Keep an eye on the herald website, we are about to see pledge card theft relegated to second place as the biggest labour funding scandal.”
That was posted at 10.21AM on Tuesday 17 June — the morning that Tova O’Brien asked her questions and Immigration officials were racing round getting responses to the Savage and Sabin OIA requests ready to send to the Minister for approval prior to release.
What is certain is that the real reason for the urgent 48-hour response to the OIA requests was to ensure that the Cunliffe letter was in the public domain by midday on Wednesday 18 June.
The same day that the government was facing a torrid questioning by the Opposition after the conviction and resignation of ACT MP, John Banks. A government that desperately needed a credible diversion. Relying on another beneficiary-bashing story from Paula Bennett was simply not tenable.
This was the a Dirty Trick of the highest order, involving an eleven year old letter; complicit media looking for another easy sensational news story; Ministers with connections to right wing bloggers; and journalists who run with the pack instead of asking questions that might yield real answers.
As they say in law enforcement circles; Motive. Means. Opportunity.
The government had all three.
This was the real story behind the Donghua Liu Affair.
.
Note
Questions on this issue have been put to Herald journalist, Jared Savage. Thus far he has declined to answer those questions.
Acknowledgement
Appreciation to ‘Hercules‘ for providing extra information and filling in the gaps. This was truly a team effort.
Update
Giovanni Tisa, through the blogger Jackal, asks some very pertinent questions here.
.
References
David Cunliffe-Immigration NZ 2003 letter
The Dim Post: June polls (“Barnsley Bill” Commen
TV3: Does Labour remain confident in Cunliffe?
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
Whaleoil: BREAKING – David Cunliffe’s career, such as it was, is over [ UPDATED ]
Kiwiblog: Cunliffe wrote on behalf of Liu after denying he knew him or advocated for him
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
NZ Herald: The email that brought down Judith Collins
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour link – More to come
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair: Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair: the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
The Donghua Liu Affair: Evidence of Collusion between the NZ Herald and Immigration NZ?
The Donghua Liu Affair: the Press Council’s decision
Other Blogs
The Standard: The Donghua Liu letter – is that it?
The Standard: Giovanni Tiso on Dirty Politics
The Jackal: 10 questions for journalists
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 11 September 2014 as “Was the Donghua Liu Affair another example of Dirty Politics?”
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair: the Press Council’s decision
5 September 2014
8 comments
.
.
1. Prologue
.
The Donghua Liu Affair hit the headlines on 18 June, with allegations that David Cunliffe wrote a letter in 2003, on behalf of business migrant, Donghua Liu.
Four days later, on Sunday 22 June, the Herald ran stories alleging massive donations to the Labour Party by Liu. Tabloid- style stories of $100,000 paid for a bottle of wine and $15,000 for a book, along with a $50,000-$60,000 dinner party hosted for then Labour minister, Rick Barker, and a donation to a rowing club, raged for several days.
By Wednesday, on 25 June, the Herald was forced to retract Liu’s claims. The “new” story was that Liu’s “donation” was,
“… close to $100,000 and that is my closing comment in my statement…that is how much I believe I have donated in total to Labour and some of their MPs during their last term in Government.”
The so-called Yangtze River boat “dinner for Rick Barker” turned out to be some sort of staff function that Liu had invited the Labour minister to attend.
Only Liu’s donation – of $2,000 – to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club, was confirmed. Considering that any “link” between the NZ Labour Party and Hawkes Bay Rowing Club is tenuous at best (Barker’s daughter was a member of the club), the value of this aspect of the Liu Affair is dubious, to put it mildly.
Cunliffe’s 11 April 2003 letter was far from “avocating on Liu’s behalf”. Instead, the eleven year old letter turned out to be a stock-standard inquiry sent to Immigration NZ with the rather banal request ,
“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 period [sic] in which he could expect a decision on his case.”
Requesting “an estimated period of time period” seems a stretch to describe it as advocating.
Accordingly, this blogger lodged a formal complaint with the Herald’s editor-in-Chief, NZ Press Council; and OIAs lodged with Deputy PM, Bill English; Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse, and the Office of the Prime Minister.
A letter seeking clarification was also emailed to Herald journalist, Jared Savage, which he has responded to. A further letter, emailed on 21 August was sent, requesting further details to his initial response. No reply has been received at this date.
On 21 August, the Press Council released their decision on my complaint – embargoed until 29 August, to allow both parties to respond (which I according did so on 28 August).
.
2. The Complaint
.
My complaint to the Press Council, lodged on 5 July this year, related to a series of article published in the NZ Herald, predominantly by staff reporter, Jared Savage. The articles ran from 18 June to around 26 June. The complaint fell into six main categories;
- That the date on David Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ (11 April 2003), regarding Donghua Liu’s application for residency under the business migrant policy, was not consistently applied to subsequent Herald articles – thereby giving some readers the impression that it was a recent document – and not eleven years old. I provided examples of five stories that omitted the crucial date.
- Donghua Liu claimed that he paid $15,000 for a book at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party categorically denied that any such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given. That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact.
- Donghua Liu claimed that he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party categorically denied that any such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given. That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact.
- On 22 June, Bevan Hurley wrote in the NZ Herald that the paper had obtained a copy of Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” which made several claims. The text of that “signed statement” has never been released to the public. I submit that it is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable that the Herald has not released, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” as it did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
- On 18 June, the Herald’s chief political commentator, John Armstrong, wrote a column that was highly condemnatory of David Cunliffe, and called for his resignation. Again, Armstrong failed to mention that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was eleven years old; secondly, that in failing to mention that salient fact, was able to infer that Cunliffe was lying; and thirdly, failed to mention Cunliffe’s explanation that because of the age of the letter, any reasonable person would have accepted his subsequent explanation.
- That the Herald misrepresented ex-Labour Minister, Rick Barker’s attendance on a Yangtze River boat trip and Donghua Liu’s $2,000 donation to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club, and, by innuendo, was able to ‘spin’ both events in a negative light.
(Full text of complaint here.)
.
3. The Herald’s editor responds
.
In an email dated 4 July, Herald editor Tim Murphy responded to my complaint;
1. The date of the letter was prominently publicised at the time we
broke the story and indeed we published the letter online. The residency
application by Liu was in the mid-2000s and that was referenced numerous
times in our coverage. We do not list all dates and facts in all subsequent
references.2. We stand by our report that a book was purchased and expect further
‘evidence’ of this to be made public shortly.3. It is clear that the $100,000 for a bottle of wine was misreported,
and was corrected as soon as further information became available from Liu.
We clarified this on all our channels and in the subsequent Herald on Sunday
and explained the error in an editorial in the New Zealand Herald.4. We do not automatically make public documents which we obtain as
part of ongoing journalistic inquiries. There are many reasons for this,
including the conditions upon which they were obtained from whatever source
and the need for us to pursue further matters contained within. While there
seems to be an expectation that journalistic inquiry must be ‘open source’
this ignores these conditions and also the competitive nature of news
gathering. The Cunliffe letter was obtained under the Official Information
Act and was released to all media, so is thus automatically a public
document.5. You seem to have accepted without question MP Rick Barker’s claim
he attended only a staff party in China. We do not accept this and expect
further details of the hospitality for him and others in China to be
revealed in due course.6. It would be wilfully naïve to assume that the donation to the
rowing club associated with an MP, the day after that MP has hosted Liu in
the region, is unconnected to that MP. The donation was made and Liu made
it with the intent of it being in favour of the MP.
It is worthwhile noting several points from Mr Murphy’s 4 July email;
Whilst the Herald did not “list all dates and facts in all subsequent references” – that did not stop them from continuous reporting of a “$100,000 bottle of wine”, a “$15,000 book”, a boat trip, and a donation to a rowing club. These matters were repeated ad nauseum. But not the date of a letter that put matters into some perspective.
Tim Murphy stated that he stood by the “report that a book was purchased and expect further ‘evidence’ of this to be made public shortly”. After nearly two months, no such ‘evidence has been forthcoming.
Tim Murphy admitted that the “$100,000 bottle of wine” was misreported. What else in Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” is a fabrication?
Tim Murphy makes no reasonable explanation why Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” (and subsequent “clarification” has been kept secret, except that they can. I did not believe this to be a suitable explanation and made my thoughts clear to the Press Council on this point.
In a subsequent response to the Council, Tim Murphy wrote,
“While there seems to be an expectation that journalistic inquiry must be ‘open source’ this ignores these conditions and also the competitive nature of news gathering. The Cunliffe letter was obtained under the Official Information Act and was released to all media, so is thus automatically a public document.”
I replied that Mr Murphy had not provided solid grounds for with-holding Mr Liu “signed statement” except reference to “the competitive nature of news gathering”. This, to me, was wholly inadequate and gave only a one-sided view to this story. The public were therefore unable to determine for themselves precisely what it was that Mr Liu has stated.
Tim Murphy stated, that I seemed “to have accepted without question MP Rick Barker’s claim he attended only a staff party in China”. He further stated that “we do not accept this and expect further details of the hospitality for him and others in China to be revealed in due course”. Again, after nearly two months no further details of this “hospitality for him and others” has been forthcoming.
Tim Murphy accused me of being “wilfully naïve to assume that the donation to the rowing club associated with an MP, the day after that MP has hosted Liu in the region, is unconnected to that MP”. That can be turned on it’s head; just because a wealthy businessman tries to “curry favour” with a politician by making a donation to a third party is not a reason to believe that attempt was in any way successful.
If I made a donation to a sporting club attended by the Prime Minister’s children – would the Herald assume that I had “curried favour” with the PM? Or merely attempted to curry favour?
The Herald seems to have made a leap of faith that Donghua Liu’s attempt to curry favour had been successful.
.
4. The Council’s decision
.
On 21 August, a representative from the Press Council emailed the Council’s adjudication on my complaint against the NZ Herald. The email stated that “the decision [was] confidential to the parties until Friday 29 August“.
Upon further questioning why the necessity for a week-long embargo, the representative from the Press Council replied on 22 August,
“We allow a week post-release so that either party can, if necessary, take up any error of fact in the Council’s decision before it is published to a wider audience.”
Thank you for telling me. (Note sarcasm.)
The Council’s deliberations yielded the following decision;
It is apparent that the Herald publications carried out an in-depth and ongoing investigation of the relationships between National and Labour and Mr Liu.
At the heart of Mr Macskasy’s complaint is the failure of the Herald in later articles to continue to repeat the date of Mr Cunliffe’s letter. The Herald has provided us with the full series of articles, which make it plain that the date was published, and a link to the full letter provided. It was a public document. We are satisfied that readers of these publications, in context, would be aware of the timing of the application for residency and the fact that Mr Cunliffe’s letter was published some time earlier. The publication of the letter only followed Mr Cunliffe’s denial of having anything to do with Mr Liu. We are not satisfied a reader would have been misled. As we have said previously where there is a series of linked stories it is not necessary in subsequent articles to repeat every detail. In any event the date of the letter and the fact it was written 11 years previously was repeated in a number of articles.
We accept in part the criticism from both Mrs Lyons and Mr Macskasy regarding the reliance on information from Mr Liu only, including his signed statement. It can correctly be distinguished from the Cunliffe letter released under the Official Information Act. We do not consider there is any obligation on a newspaper to publish it in full. While they were entitled to rely on such a statement as part of the factual basis when reporting the paper failed to adhere to a basic tenet of journalism…the need to have confirmation from a second source. As a result the reporting about which Mrs Lyons is complaining was incorrect. We accept the statement was ambiguous and could have been read to mean Mr Liu had paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine when in fact he was attempting to convey he had spent $100,000 in total for various matters relating to the Labour Party and Mr Barker. But if a second source had been sought to confirm the story the error would not have occurred.
However, we accept that the Herald assiduously pursued Mr Liu for clarification and when it came immediately published a correction. A number of subsequent articles repeated the correction.Principle 12 reads: “A publication’s willingness to correct errors enhances its credibility and, often, defuses complaint. Significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence. In some circumstances it will be appropriate to offer an apology and a right of reply to an affected person or persons.” Here it was the Herald’s enquiries that revealed the error. It was corrected promptly with fair prominence and the correction was repeated. In those circumstances the Council does not uphold the complaint.
Neither complaint is upheld.
To say that I was flabbergasted at the decision and the rationalistion behind their decision, would be a wholly accurate assessment.
The Press Council’s admission – a statement which appears to conflate two semi-related issues – of the Herald’s faulty reporting is outlined with clarity;
“We accept in part the criticism from both Mrs Lyons and Mr Macskasy regarding the reliance on information from Mr Liu only, including his signed statement. It can correctly be distinguished from the Cunliffe letter released under the Official Information Act. We do not consider there is any obligation on a newspaper to publish it in full. While they were entitled to rely on such a statement as part of the factual basis when reporting the paper failed to adhere to a basic tenet of journalism…the need to have confirmation from a second source…
[…]
… But if a second source had been sought to confirm the story the error would not have occurred. “
Which is part of the nub of the issue: that the Herald relied on the uncorrobrated and unproven allegations of just one individual.
Such reliance on one person’s unsubstantiated allegations would be bad enough in normal circumstances.
But the series of articles in the Herald focused on the Leader of a major political party during a critical election year campaign. It could not have been more damaging if it had been deliberately planned for maximum damage.
After a week of collecting my thoughts, I gave my response to the Press Council, and will close with the statement I emailed to them on 28 August;
.
With regards to the Press Council’s decision (2390/2391) to my complaint, the following is my response;
The PC Decision states: “At the heart of Mr Macskasy’s complaint is the failure of the Herald in later articles to continue to repeat the date of Mr Cunliffe’s letter.”
My response: Incorrect. The date of David Cunliffe’s letter was referenced twice out of six main points within my complaint. It was not the “heart of… the complaint”.
The PC Decision states: “As we have said previously where there is a series of linked stories it is not necessary in subsequent articles to repeat every detail.”
My response: The Herald repeated certain details when it came to “$100,000 bottles of wine”, “$15,000 books”, “Yangtze river boat trips”, and “rowing club donations”. It strikes me as not unreasonable to place a similar emphasis on the eleven year old provenance of a letter.
The PC Decision states “However, we accept that the Herald assiduously pursued Mr Liu for clarification and when it came immediately published a correction. A number of subsequent articles repeated the correction. “
My response: The corrections were made as one editorial and one online (?) article. I submit that this was manifestly inadequate.
It would have taken full page corrections on the front page of the Herald to undo the damage to Mr Cunliffe’s political reputation and public perception of the Labour Party during a critical election year.
I also maintain that, by then, the sensationalised headlines of “$100,000 bottles of wine”, “$15,000 books”, “Yangtze river boat trips”, and “rowing club donations” made any correction(s) almost meaningless. The damage had been done to one man’s public reputation.
The PC Decision states: “We accept in part the criticism from both Mrs Lyons and Mr Macskasy regarding the reliance on information from Mr Liu only, including his signed statement. It can correctly be distinguished from the Cunliffe letter released under the Official Information Act. We do not consider there is any obligation on a newspaper to publish it in full. While they were entitled to rely on such a statement as part of the factual basis when reporting the paper failed to adhere to a basic tenet of journalism…the need to have confirmation from a second source”
My response: The Council conflates two semi-related issues in that statement.
Firstly, failure to publish Mr Liu’s statement in full, as the Herald did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
The question remains unanswered; what is the Herald hiding? Why will they not release the text of both of Mr Liu’s statements? In the interests of full disclosures and giving the public full information – what possible justification can there be to keep these documents secrets.
The Herald’s sole justification has been: ‘because we can’.
Suspicions of selective use of Mr Liu’s statements will remain for as long as the Herald relies on secrecy. The Press Council is inexplicably enabling this secrecy.
Secondly, reliance on one one uncorroborated and unproven allegations.
The Herald’s entire “story” was based on My Liu’s lone “signed statement”, and latter a “correction”. Whilst some minor events were proven – a Yangtze Rive boat trip and rowing club donation – those two in themselves did not prove the overall points that Mr Liu made. In fact, the main, substantive allegations have never been substantiated.
It is worthwhile to remind the Council that the Herald editor, Tim Murphy, stated on 4 July, ” We stand by our report that a book was purchased and expect further ‘evidence’ of this to be made public shortly”.
Similar comments have been made elsewhere that more “evidence” will be “revealed”. It is nearly three months since Mr Murphy made that statement.
To date, no further stories on the Donghua Liu Affair have been published. Mr Murphy’s claims of “more to come” have not materialised.
This is a point that the Press Council has not taken into full consideration: where is the new evidence?
Not only was the Liu Affair based on one man’s uncorroborated allegations; not only was the Herald forced to retract part’s of Mr Liu’s allegations; but the story appears to have “run out of steam” for lack of evidence.
The Principles of the Press Council states in part,”An independent press plays a vital role in a democracy. The proper fulfilment of that role requires a fundamental responsibility to maintain high standards of accuracy, fairness and balance and public faith in those standards.”
How can “high standards of accuracy, fairness and balance” be maintained when,
* information is with-held from the public,
* unproven and uncorroborated allegations from just one individual are presented as fact,
* there is minimal attempt at balance,
* only lip-service is made to correct inaccuracies
* the media concerned makes no effort to publish an apology
* the media concerned insists that there is “more to come” – but no further evidence has been forthcoming
And worse still, though the Press Council gave a ‘nod’ to wrong-doing by stating that “we accept in part the criticism from both Mrs Lyons and Mr Macskasy regarding the reliance on information from Mr Liu only, including his signed statement” – it was not prepared to pursue the matter further by making enacting the basic principles of journalism to find out WHY the Herald did what it did.
When I considered laying a complaint with the Council, I had an understanding from other sources that it was an ineffectual organisation that was more concerned with preserving the status quo than challenging it.
Having read the Council’s decision, I see nothing to change that perception.
The Press Council refers to “public faith in those standards”.
I submit that public faith is sorely tested when poor reporting and management decisions trump sound investigative journalism.
I further submit that the raison d’etre for the Press Council is under-mined when it fails to carry our it’s core responsibilities;
“Editors have the ultimate responsibility for what appears in their publications, and for adherence to the standards of ethical journalism which the Council upholds”
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
.
5. Conclusion
.
Despite Tim Murphy’s insistence of “further evidence” and “further revelations”, no such “evidence” or “revelations” have materialised.
It is now two and a half months since the first “story” broke on 18 June. No subsequent new facts have emerged since the Herald was forced to retract, on 25 June, it’s claims of a $100,00 bottle of wine.
It is fair to say that, despite the Press Council’s “collective wisdom”, that the Donghua Liu saga has proven to be miserable failure for the NZ Herald.
To be continued: The Donghua Liu Affair: OIA Responses from the PM; Deputy PM; the Immigration Minister, and next steps
.
References
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
NZ Herald: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
Frankly Speaking Archives: Complaint to NZ Press Council 5 July 2014
Press Council: Full text of Decision
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
The Donghua Liu Affair: Evidence of Collusion between the NZ Herald and Immigration NZ?
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 30 August 2014
.
.
= fs =
Categories: Media, The Body Politic
David Cunliffe, Donghua Liu, NZ Herald, Press Council, Tim Murphy
The Donghua Liu Affair: Evidence of Collusion between the NZ Herald and Immigration NZ?
25 August 2014
13 comments
.
1. Prologue
.
The Donghua Liu Affair hit the headlines on 18 June, with allegations that David Cunliffe wrote a letter in 2003, on behalf of business migrant, Donghua Liu.
Four days later, on Sunday 22 June, the Herald ran stories alleging massive donations to the Labour Party by Liu. Tabloid- style stories of $100,000 paid for a bottle of wine and $15,000 for a book, along with a $50,000-$60,000 dinner party hosted for then Labour minister, Rick Barker, and a donation to a rowing club, raged for several days.
By Wednesday, on 25 June, the Herald was forced to retract Liu’s claims. The “new” story was that Liu’s “donation” was,
“… close to $100,000 and that is my closing comment in my statement…that is how much I believe I have donated in total to Labour and some of their MPs during their last term in Government.”
The so-called Yangtze River boat “dinner for Rick Barker” turned out to be some sort of staff function that Liu had invited the Labour minister to attend.
Only Liu’s donation – of $2,000 – to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club, was confirmed. Considering that any “link” between the NZ Labour Party and Hawkes Bay Rowing Club is tenuous at best (Barker’s daughter was a member of the club), the value of this aspect of the Liu Affair is dubious, to put it mildly.
Cunliffe’s 11 April 2003 letter was far from “avocating on Liu’s behalf”. Instead, the eleven year old letter turned out to be a stock-standard inquiry sent to Immigration NZ with the rather banal request ,
“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 period [sic] in which he could expect a decision on his case.”
Requesting “an estimated period of time period” seems a stretch to describe it as advocating.
Accordingly, this blogger lodged a formal complaint with the Herald’s editor-in-Chief, NZ Press Council; and OIAs lodged with Deputy PM, Bill English; Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse, and the Office of the Prime Minister.
A letter seeking clarification was also emailed to Herald journalist, Jared Savage, which he has responded to.
The responses thus far, and the next steps taken…
.
2. The NZ Herald – formal complaint to the Press Council
.
On 28 June, I sent a formal complaint to Tim Murphy, Editor of the Herald, regarding his paper’s handling of the Donghua Liu story. (See: The Donghua Liu Affair: responses from NZ Herald and Prime Minister’s Office – Is the PM’s office fudging?)
On 4 July, Mr Murphy responded. I considered his formal response and explanations to be inadequate and in one instance (John Armstrong’s column calling for David Cunliffe’s resignation) no attempt was made to address the issue.
Accordingly, I lodged a formal complaint to the Press Council on 5 July.
Two days later, the Press Council referred the complaint to the Herald;
From: Mary Major [mailto:info@presscouncil.org.nz]
Sent: Monday, 7 July 2014 8:27 a.m.
To: Tim Murphy
Cc: Sarah Lawrence
Subject: FW: Online ComplaintDear Tim and Sarah,
Please see below for a complaint from Frank MacSkasy. Could we please have
your response within the next 10 working days.Kind regards,
Mary
On 15 July, the Herald’s editor responded to the Press Council;
From: Sarah Lawrence [mailto:Sarah.Lawrence@nzherald.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 15 July 2014 5:00 p.m.
To: Mary Major
Subject: FW: Press Council complaint – Frank MacskasyHello Mary
Please find below a response from Tim Murphy to the Frank Macskasy
complaint. Also enclosed is the full record of Herald stories for the
Council’s information as mentioned by Tim below (I had to split them into
two parts, hope that’s OK), and also our responses to his initial
complaints.Thanks so much.
Kind regards
SARAH LAWRENCE
PA to Editor in Chief of Herald Titles
[phones numbers redacted – FM]—–Original Message—–
From: Tim Murphy
Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2014 10:55 a.m.
To: Sarah Lawrence
Subject: RE: Press Council complaint – Frank MacskasyDear Mary
We have corresponded with Fran [sic] Macskasy twice on this issue. I have
enclosed our two replies, which I believe address his concerns. The second
reply is to a complaint almost exactly the same as the one below forwarded
to the Press Council. At this point we believe those responses should stand
as our submission to the Council. We have included the full record of
Herald stories on the Donghua Liu-Labour donations issue for your reference.
Many thanksTim Murphy
Editor-in-chief, New Zealand Herald titles.
A day later, the Press Council contacted me with the Herald’s response;
from: Mary Major <info@presscouncil.org.nz>
to: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 9:51 AM
subject: FW: Press Council complaint – Frank MacskasyGood morning Frank,
Please see below and attached for the response from the NZ Herald.
You now have the opportunity to make a brief final comment (around 150
words). We would be pleased to receive this comment within the next 10
working days. The complaint will be considered by the Press Council at the
next meeting, which is on August 4, and the decision will be released about
two weeks after that.Kind regards,
Mary
My final comment (unfortunately, not so brief, because of the complexities of this issue), was made on 19 July;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Mary Major <info@presscouncil.org.nz>
date: Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM
subject: Re: FW: Press Council complaint – Frank MacskasyKia ora Mary,
I have read Mr Murphy’s response to my complaint and I do not believe they are a satisfactory response to the issues I have raised in my complaint.
1. Many of the Herald stories relating to David Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ, regarding Donghua Liu, did not refer to the actual date of the letter (11 April 2003). In several subsequent stories referring to this letter, the Herald omitted any reference to the date, thereby leaving an unknown number of readers with the impression that the letter was recently written. This is a salient, critical fact of the story and it’s omission may have created a mistaken perception in the minds of many readers.
There was simply no valid reason to with-hold that vital fact from subsequent stories.
2. Tim Murphy wrote on 4 July, ” We stand by our report that a book was purchased and expect further ‘evidence’ of this to be made public shortly”.
As of this date (19 July), over two weeks have passed and no ” further ‘evidence’ of this [has been] made public” to date.
The Herald has presented an unsubstantiated claim as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that this claim was verified as true.
Promises of “further evidence” have not materialised. There is no indication when “further evidence” will ever materialise.
3. Regarding the Herald’s “clarification” of Donghua Liu’s claims for $100,000 spent on a bottle on wine.
(A) The “clarification” was inadequate because more coverage was given to the initial (false) claims than the clarification. This is bound to create a lasting impression in the minds of many readers that the initial (false) allegation was correct, being unaware of a subsequent “clarification”
(B) No apology was made to Labour leader, David Cunliffe.
The story was therefore false and only a cursory attempt made to rectify it.
4. I wrote in my complaint that “It is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable that the Herald has not released, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” as it did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.”
Mr Murphy replied, “We do not automatically make public documents which we obtain as part of ongoing journalistic inquiries. There are many reasons for this, including the conditions upon which they were obtained from whatever source and the need for us to pursue further matters contained within. While there seems to be an expectation that journalistic inquiry must be ‘open source’ this ignores these conditions and also the competitive nature of news gathering. The Cunliffe letter was obtained under the Official Information Act and was released to all media, so is thus automatically a public document.”
I maintain that Mr Murphy has not provided solid grounds for with-holding Mr Liu “signed statement” except reference to “the competitive nature of news gathering”. This is wholly inadequate and gives only a one-sided view to this story. The public are unable to determine for themselves precisely what is is that Mr Liu has stated.
Given that he has already been shown to be less than credible with his allegation (see Point 3 above), I maintain this is a salient aspect of the story.
It is also worth noting that the media rails against governments of various hues for restricting the flow of information under the guise of “commercial sensitivity” and it is supremely ironic that the Herald – a news media organisation – is now following suit and employing the same tactic.
5. Mr Murphy fails to respond in any way to my complaint regarding John Armstrong’s column on 18 June.
6.
(A) The Herald’s stories regarding former Labour MP, Rick Barker attending a river boat cruise in 2007 were not based on fact, and instead relied on nothing more than hear-say from Donghua Liu – who has already had to retract his allegations of a $100,000 bottle of wine. Mr Murphy stated, “You seem to have accepted without question MP Rick Barker’s claim he attended only a staff party in China. We do not accept this and expect further details of the hospitality for him and others in China to be revealed in due course.”
As Bervan Hurley wrote these allegations on 22 June, it is now one month later and no “further details of the hospitality for him and others in China [have been] revealed in due course”.
In effect, the Herald has made allegations on one man’s unproven assertions and is now promising to “reveal in due course further details”. Mr Murphy offers no hint of when “due course” will arrive.
(B) Mr Murphy writes on the issue of Liu’s $2,000 donation to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club; “It would be wilfully naïve to assume that the donation to the rowing club associated with an MP, the day after that MP has hosted Liu in the region, is unconnected to that MP. The donation was made and Liu made it with the intent of it being in favour of the MP.”
It is simply astounding that Mr Murphy explains away the story regarding Liu’s donation as “Liu made it with the intent of it being in favour of the MP”. Since when can one man’s intent to “curry favour” be turned into a story implicating Rick Barker and the Labour Party of inappropriate activities? What Mr Liu “intended” cannot be laid at the feet of Mr Barker.
Conclusion.
It is obvious that the Herald relied on one man’s (Donghua Liu) unsubstantiated assertions – of which one has been retracted; one remains unproven; whilst others have been mis-represented.
This was a story predicated on very little, and which has caused untold damage to a main political party* in a critical juncture in election year.
As such, I maintain that the Press Council should act accordingly in fairness and to send a strong signal to the media that unfair and unbalanced stories based on hear-say are grossly irresponsible and unacceptable.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy* Note: I am not a Labour Party member or supporter.
Now we wait to 4 August for a decision from the Press Council.
.
2. NZ Herald journalist Jared Savage – Clarifications sought
.
On 19 June, I lodged an OIA request with Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse (to be reported in the next chapter of this story; The Donghua Liu Affair: OIA Responses from the PM; Deputy PM; the Immigration Minister, and next steps).
A response from the Minister’s office was received on 17 July.
Within that response were various pieces of information that required clarification from Herald reporter, Jared Savage, who had been covering much of the Donghua Liu “story”. Accordingly, I wrote to Jared with my questions;
.
From: fmacskasy@gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, 17 July 2014 8:52 p.m.
To: Jared Savage
Subject: OIA Request; Donghua Liu; clarification on your involvementThis message has been sent via the NZ Herald Website
——————————————————Frank Macskasy
fmacskasy@gmail.comKia ora Jared,
I am in receipt of information from Minister Michael Woodhouse’s office released to me under an OIA request.
The information provided requires some clarification on your part.
1. You lodged an OIA request on 16 June 2014 with Minister Woodhouse’s office, seeking, “Any correspondence, including emails, letters or queries, from any Members of Parliament in regards to Donghua Liu’s immigration status prior to 2005”.
2. You received a response, with relevant information, two days later on 18 June 2014.
3. Can you explain why you specifically mentioned “Donghua Liu’s immigration status prior to 2005”? Why did you mention the specific year of 2005?
4. You received material from Minister Woodhouse’s office within 48 hours – an unusually rapid “turn-a-round” time for an OIA request, which normally take weeks, if not months, to complete. Can you shed any light on why you received the information (including the 11 April 2003 letter from David Cunliffe to Immigration NZ) so quickly?
5. Can you confirm that you received a “tip off” to make the OIA, and, specifically, that you were aware of the Cunliffe/Donghua Liu/Immigration NZ letter prior to receiving a copy of it from Minister Woodhouses’ OIA release?
These questions are part of an on-going story I am writing on the Liu Affair. There appears to be unanswered questions surrounding the Herald’s involvement in this issue and any assistance you can provide to clear up unresolved issues will be appreciated.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
Jared Savage replied later that day;
.
from: Jared Savage <Jared.Savage@nzherald.co.nz>
to: “fmacskasy@gmail.com” <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:27 PM
subject: RE: OIA Request; Donghua Liu; clarification on your involvement
mailed-by: nzherald.co.nzHi Frank,
Happy to answer questions as I’ve previously answered these on Twitter.
You might recall that prior to writing about Donghua Liu’s links to Labour, I wrote extensively about his links to the Nats.
It all started with queries about his citizenship while the Nats were in power, against advice, specifically after Maurice Williamson writing an email in support in 2010…it eventually led to Mr Williamson’s resignation as a Minister for intervening in a police matter and the discovery that Liu was also lobbying Immigration Minister Woodhouse to change policy.
I’ve also previously written about another citizenship case, Bill Liu (no relation), which was also granted against advice, but this was when Labour was last in Government.
It got me thinking about Donghua Liu’s bid for residency in 2005, which was also granted by Labour against official advice by Damien O’Connor, and whether he was lobbied.
I initially asked for his entire residency file under the OIA on May 8. I note that the next day Minister Woodhouse asked for the file.
I was declined the entire file on privacy grounds on June 16. As I was really only interested in whether MPs were involved in his residency bid, I refined my request to ask for any correspondence from MPs because this is clearly in the public interest.
I specifically mentioned prior to 2005 because this is when Mr Liu was granted residency, against advice. There would not be any correspondence after he gained residency.
Unfortunately, it was clumsily worded because Immigration officials interpreted the word prior to exclude 2005 in the response. I then lodged a further OIA request which revealed Mr O’Connor intervened 3 times in the lead up to residency being granted – including waiving the English language criteria – the day before the 2005 election.
I also wrote that Mr Liu has spent considerable time with Labour Minister Rick Barker in 2007 – the Minister in charge of citizenship under Labour- including hosting him in China and the Hawke’s Bay.
Coming back to the June 16 request, two days later, I received the letters. I have no idea why Immigration released it so quickly. Probably because they had already processed my earlier request of June 16 so the file was available, but you’d have to ask Immigration.
The reason why I asked questions about the potential involvement of MPs in Liu’s residency bid was that I was suspicious in the same way I was suspicious about the involvement of MPs in the citizenship bid.
Does your OIA response focus on Minister Woodhouse’s OIA response to me, solely, or to all media outlets?
Because it was not a Herald reporter asking direct questions of Mr Cunliffe’s potential involvement the day before the release of the letters…
Hope that helps
Jared
.
Awaiting information from several OIA requests and a Press Council complaint, I held off responding to Mr Savage. However, I have since received responses to OIA requests lodged with the offices of John Key, Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse, and Deputy PM Bill English. A decision from the Press Council is due today (21 August).
Today (21 August), I wrote back to Jared Savage, asking for clarification on certain matters;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Jared Savage <Jared.Savage@nzherald.co.nz>
date: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:34 AM
subject: Re: OIA Request; Donghua Liu; clarification on your involvementKia ora Jared,I am in receipt of your email dated July 17, 2014 at 11:27 PM, in reply to my email dated earlier the same day. Your prompt response is appreciated. (My own apologies for taking so long to reply.)I have some follow up questions which, I hope, may clarify the answers you have already provided. (I am still pursuing this story, as I believe there are facts yet to be uncovered, especially in the light of Nicky Hager’s book, “Dirty Politics”.)
1. You write; “Coming back to the June 16 request, two days later, I received the letters. I have no idea why Immigration released it so quickly.”
Question A: Have you, or any other NZ Herald staffer asked Immigration NZ why the letter was released so quickly?Question B: Was this rapid turn-a-round for an OIA request discussed at NZ Herald, and if so, what was the outcome?Question C: Do your happen to have a copy of the email from Minister Woodhouse/Immigration NZ and specifically, the date-time on it?
I would appreciate a copy of the covering letter that accompanied the 2003 Cunliffe-Liu letter. I am assuming that will not break journalistic standards in protecting your sources, as the source of the letter is now public information.Question D: What other correspondence have you had with Minister Woodhouse, Immigration NZ, or any other Third Party on this matter?2. You write; “Does your OIA response focus on Minister Woodhouse’s OIA response to me, solely, or to all media outlets? Because it was not a Herald reporter asking direct questions of Mr Cunliffe’s potential involvement the day before the release of the letters…”
I have searched the internet for prior references to David Cunliffe’s involvement with the Donghua Liu Affair, and can find only two media reports that *appear* to precede your 18 June Herald story. One is from Interest.Co.Nz (http://www.interest.co.nz/news/70461/cunliffes-labour-leadership-under-pressure-letter-shows-he-advocated-donghua-liu-2003-des), and the other from TV3 (http://www.3news.co.nz/Controversial-Chinese-donor-also-gave-to-Labour/tabid/1607/articleID/348740/Default.aspx). However, they both refer to your newspaper as the source of the story.
The TV3 story does not refer to the Cunliffe 2003 letter.
The Interest.co.nz story by Bernard Hickey referring to the Cunliffe 2003 letter was published at 1.45pm on 18 June – earlier than your story (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276510) at 2.29 and yet still appears to link to your story, published 44 minutes later.Question E: Can you suggest how Interest.co.nz came to have that information?I understand that TV3 journalists were putting questions to David Cunliffe on 17 June (one day BEFORE you or anyone else had received the 2003 Cunliffe-Liu letter, via an OIA request) regarding what contact he had with Mr Liu.Question F: Do you have any idea why they asked those very specific questions, and how they tied in with the 2003 Cunliffe-Liu letter?3. You wrote; “It got me thinking about Donghua Liu’s bid for residency in 2005, which was also granted by Labour against official advice by Damien O’Connor, and whether he was lobbied..”Question G: Where did you first learn about this?
Question H: Were any of O’Connor’s letters already in the public arena? (I can’t locate any prior to your Herald story.)
Your Editor, Tim Murphy, has stated that there is much more to come on the Donghua Liu Affair, with new evidence to confirm his allegations.Question I: Will there be follow up stories on this issue? Are any in the pipeline?5. You wrote, “I also wrote that Mr Liu has spent considerable time with Labour Minister Rick Barker in 2007 – the Minister in charge of citizenship under Labour- including hosting him in China and the Hawke’s Bay.”
Question J: Have you had any contact with Simon Lusk (who also happens to live in the Hawkes Bay area), or any of his associates with regards to this matter?
Question K: Did you recieve a tip-off on Rick Barker’s association with Mr Liu? (I won’t ask you for your sources, for obvious reasons.)
6. Question L: Are there any facts that I may have over-looked in this issue that may have a bearing on clarifying the story?Hopefully, you can assist me to clarify these outstanding questions – especially if you can supply me with a copy of the covering email/letter from Immigration NZ/Michael Woodhouse, including email headers, which pertains to receipt of the 2003 Cunliffe-Liu letter. I would be interested in receiving a copy of that, in conjunction with an OIA request I have lodged on the matter with relevant Ministeries.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
.
3. Immigration NZ and NZ Herald – more questions and a suggestion of collusion
.
Now, here’s the thing.
In Nicky Hager’s book, “Dirty Politics“, the author’s remarks on the rapid turnaround of OIA requests made by extremist right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater, to various government departments including the secretive SIS;
“Documents like the SIS briefing notes are not usually released to the public, under the official information law [OIA] or otherwise. Someone had overruled the usual practice and then fast-tracked the release. The released documents were stamped as being declassified on 26 July 2011, the same day that Slater sent off his request. Where was the time for decision-making and consultations?” – “Dirty Politics”, p40
And,
“[Jason] Ede recommended the wording that Slater use in his official information request: ‘Written and email communications within, to and from, Paula Bennett’s Ministerial office and its staff in relation to Ira Bailey from the beginning of last week til today’ and Slater sent the request that day, using exactly the same words, apart from inserting a bracketed date, ‘Mon 8 October 2012’, after ‘last week’. Slater received the information from Bennett by the following day and was able to publicise it with a government-friendly spin – “Bennett’s office in the clear’ less than two days after Ede wrote to him.” – “Dirty Politics”, p41/42
This blogger can testify to one immutable fact-of-life: OIA requests to Minister’s offices and governments departments can take several weeks, if not more than a month, to fulfill.
Case in point: I asked for a copy of the covering letter from Immigration NZ to NZ Herald’s journalist, Jared Savage, on 21 July this year,
.
Kia ora Ms Hames/Minister Michael Woodhouse,
Thank you for providing the information I was requesting under the OIA.
I require some further items of information, which I am lodging as an OIA request;
1. The covering email/letter to Jared Savage, of the NZ Herald, pertaining to the release of David Cunliffe’s 11 April 2003 (pertaining to Donghua Liu, to Immigration NZ) letter to that reporter (or any other person(s) at the NZ Herald or any other media outlet, on or about 18 June of this year.
.
It took one month (20 August) for that simple response to be filled. A copy of the letter, from Immigration NZ to Jared Savage, is presented;
.
.
Note the date that Mr Savage lodged the OIA request: 18 June 2014.
Note the date that Immigration NZ responded, supplying a copy of the 2003 Cunliffe-Liu letter: 20 June 2014.
Two days.
Yet it took Immigration NZ a month to send the covering Immigration NZ-Savage letter to me.
One cannot escape the conclusion that some form of collusion has taken place between Immigration NZ/Minister Woodhouse and the NZ Herald. Nicky Hager has uncovered how that sort of collusion has taken place between right-wing blogger and National Party-mouthpiece, Cameron Slater and the Prime Minister’s office.
The question now is – has the same collusion been occurring between the NZ Herald and the PM’s office?
Two days for an OIA request to be completed? The Herald has some questions to answer.
To be continued: The Donghua Liu Affair: the Press Council’s decision
To be continued: The Donghua Liu Affair: OIA Responses from the PM; Deputy PM; the Immigration Minister, and next steps
.
References
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 August 2014
.
.
= fs =
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
29 July 2014
4 comments
.
.
The recent non-story on David Cunliffe’s three day holiday should be proof-positive that the mainstream media (msm) is fixated on pumping out as many “bad news” reporting as can be generated by a headline-seeking; advertising-driven; lazy corporate-media system.
We’re all aware that whilst Cunliffe took a three day break (I’m surprised he bothered to come back, instead of telling this country to go get f- – – – – !), our illustrious Dear Leader was off on a ten-day holiday, sunning his pale, $55 million arse, on a Maui beach in Hawaii.
Whilst the media did indeed mention that salient fact (albeit in passing), it was taken as a given that the leader of a party polling 50%-plus in the polls is entitled to a holiday.
Meanwhile, the leader of a mid-twenties-polling (?) Party is – it was hinted – not entitled to any such break.
The subtext was blindingly obvious; success breeds reward. In this case, a warm, sunny Hawaiian beach.
And failure means you don’t deserve a single damn thing, so get-back-to-work-peasant!
When you look at the Tale of Two Holidays, it is glaringly obvious how differently the media – and certain ego-driven political commentators who shall remain nameless – reported both events. The public must have been scratching their heads, wondering, What-The-F**k?!
Even right-wing political commentator and National Party cadre, Matthew Hooton, remarked on the apparent contradiction on 21 July, on Radio NZ’s political panel;
“The Prime Minister was away for ten days at his bach or his holiday home. As you say, it seems terribly unfair and Labour people are very angry with the media because they say ‘here’s the Prime Minister goes away for ten days and our leader get’s sick for two days and goes skiing for three days and then get’s criticised’
[…]
… to be completely crass about about this, if the CEO of Coca Cola and there’s the CEO of Pepsi Cola, and one of them’s sale’s are increasing making great profits, and the other one’s got a whole lot of product recalls underway and sales are down and they’re in a shambles, then the first CEO get’s to go on holiday and the other one doesn’t.”
The media’s unhealthy fixation on Cunliffe left me wondering…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:16 PM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Dominion Post.
There has been public disquiet that the mainstream media appears to be unfairly treating the leader of the Labour party, David Cunliffe.This disquiet appears to have been confirmed by the recent attention and disparaging remarks by political reporters and commentators on Cunliffe’s three day holiday in Queenstown.
The same disparaging remarks were not directed at Prime Minister John Key, who himself took a ten day holiday – three times as long! – in Hawaii, at the same time.
Or the recent Donghua Liu “story”, where Mr Liu claimed he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine to Labour – and then had to retract his allegations. No apology to Cunliffe was forthcoming, I noticed.
It appears to be different rules of reporting by the media when it comes to both men.
Of course, the media will respond that Labour is low in the polls and criticism by political commentators reflects that.
The irony is that constant negative stories by the media, including focusing on trivia (Cunliffe’s red scarf!!) and smear campaigns, feeds into Labour’s low poll rating. It is a ever-descending vicious circle.
Wouldn’t it be a fine idea if the media simply reported the news, instead of making it up and generating sensationalistic headlines, just to sell advertising space?
Far be it for me to tell the media how to do their job. I’m just an ordinary citizen who has to hear this kind of garbage day after day.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
There is another reason why it seems bizarre that the media made such a fuss over Cunliffe’s three day break.
It’s common knowledge that Key takes his holidays in Hawaii. Which is an odd way for a Minister of Tourism to show his endorsement of the local tourism industry, and is something I’ve blogged about in the past. As usual, the mainstream media never considered it worthy of consideration.
But it seems to have been a different story when David Cunliffe dared take three days off – supporting local businesses in the process – and all hell broke loose.
The campaign against Cunliffe was no better highlighted than the Herald’s recent Doinghua Liu Affair*, when an immigrant businessman made several allegations against David Cunliffe. Of those allegations, one (about a $100,000 bottle of wine) was retracted; one (about a supposed $15,000 book) remains unproven by any evidence; and the other two appear to have been overt attempts by Mr Liu to “curry favour” with a previous Labour minister.
Yet, the allegations were given wide prominence, even though,
- there was very little (if any) actual evidence presented – it was all hear-say based on one man’s claims,
- the Herald has pointedly refused to make public Mr Liu’s written statements, despite making public a copy of a letter signed by Cunliffe in 2003,
- no apology, for the mis-reporting of the now-discredited $100,000 bottle of wine, has been forthcoming.
Then again, perhaps the purpose of the Donghua Liu Affair was not to report the news – but to manufacture it, and in the process unfairly damage a reputation and undermine a party’s election campaign…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Sunday Star Times.
John Key takes a ten day holiday in Hawaii and David Cunliffe takes a three day break in Queenstown – and the media go nuts over Cunliffe. All because of one unattributed “letter” from an anonymous individual claiming to be a “senior Labour party official”.
For all we know, the letter could have originated from the National Party’s dirty tricks team and hyped by certain TV3 and Herald commentators.
The Donghua Liu Affair was another sensationalised story based on one man’s unsubstantiated allegations – one of which has been retracted through lack of evidence.
Cunliffe addressed a family violence conference in Auckland and one tiny portion of his speech was taken utterly out of context by a headline-seeking media desperate for a sensational story. His full statement – which is rarely reported – “I’m sorry for being a man right now because family and sexual violence perpetrated overwhelmingly by men”
The true meaning of Cunliffe’s speech was lost in the subsequent media-generated hysteria.
Meanwhile, John Key refuses to apologise to crime-victim, Tania Billingsley for the shocking way in which the government botched the apprehension of the alleged perpetrator. Key says, “I don’t make apologies unless there’s a serious reason for me to do that.”
Evidently sexual violence is not a “serious” matter for the PM?
Key feels he can get away with such an outrageous comment because he knows full well that the media is fixated, with pack-like mentality, on David Cunliffe.
The public are not well-served by such poor “news” manufacturing.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
The concerted attacks on Cunliffe do indeed reek of a “pack mentality”; the kind of schoolyard or workplace bullying that takes place when a group recognises someone who, for whatever reason, is constrained in hitting back.
In Cunliffe’s case, he can’t “hit” back at the media. Not without adding fuel to the hysterics from the likes of Garner, Gower, Henry, Armstrong, et al.
In John Armstrong’s case, the man is simply so wedded to his mates in the National Party that, on the same day Donghua Liu made his allegations, the Herald columnist called for David Cunliffe to step down as leader of the Labour Party;
.
.
The fact that there was little actual evidence of wrong-doing was not a matter Armstrong considered. Indeed, if one carefully reads Armstrong’s diatribe, one curious truth becomes apparent; at no point does he mention that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was written in 2003 – eleven years ago;
.
.
Unless one had an eidetic memory, no human being on Earth could possibly recall signing a letter written over a decade ago.
Of course, it suited Armstrong’s purpose to omit the date. To any reader unfamiliar with the full details of the story, taking the letter out of it’s historical context gave Armstrong’s column validity that it barely deserved. It suited the Herald’s agenda to undermine the Labour leader. And it fitted like a hand-in-glove the collective media pack-attack on Cunliffe.
The entire issue became a Monty Pythonesque-style farce when, on 22 July, when Patrick Gower reported on David Cunliffe’s exasperation with a media obsessed with finding fault with him;
.
David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
.
Political Editor
.
And it is a long list – there is his apology for being a man and his apology for taking a holiday. There is even an apology for the scarf he has been wearing.
“I am being straight up – things I could have done better, things that I will do better.”
The Labour Party is in a crisis at just 26.7 percent in the latest 3 News-Reid Research poll.
“So David Cunliffe Cunliffe voluntarily makes multiple ‘mea culpas’ about what can only be described as pretty minor issues…”
Pretty. Minor. Issues.
Those “pretty minor issues” are the “issues” which TV3, NZ Herald, and other media outlets have been fixated upon for the last few months – and now Gower is criticising Cunliffe for raising those very same issues?!
This is what I call manufactured news. Manufactured news made worse when a political figure is boxed into a corner to address them, thereby validating the synthetic nature of said “news”.
No wonder that Cunliffe said in the same video;
“I am determined that I will be extremely careful about the way I put things going forward…”
Just what the public needs; politicians fearful of saying plainly and clearly what’s on their minds because they are wary of their remarks being taken out of context; twisted; and hyper-sensationalised, by an increasingly tabloid-style media in this country.
We have been poorly served by the media which is more interested in ratings and selling advertising rather than reporting events. As matters stand, we may see politicians self-censoring, thereby pressuring political journalists/commentators to generate even more of their own asinine, manufactured ‘stories’, with ever-more lurid headlines.
Fifteen months ago, John Key expressed his frustration at what he perceived as media hounding. He retaliated;
“What I should have done, and what I will be doing in the future, is saying, well, the member needs to put that down to me in writing, and I’ll be doing that to the journalists as well.
‘Cos if you want perfection of everything I have done, two, three, four, five years ago, I will get you all that information for you, but I’ll get you the whole lot and give it to you.”
Perhaps the Labour leader might consider that mainstream media are no longer merely news-gathering and reporting organisations. They are selling advertising to earn revenue to return a dividend to shareholders.
As such, the mainstream media has it’s own agenda and reporting the news is no longer as profitable as it once was. “News” now has to be “packaged” and delivered to “consumers”. The “packaging” is now more important than the content.
Bear that in mind, Mr Cunliffe; you are being “packaged” for media consumers in whatever manner will sell the product (advertising).
My advice to David Cunliffe; refuse to be “packaged”. Develop a strategy for ignoring “pretty minor issues“. Treat the next smear campaign that rises in the same way that Key treats such matters; with casual disdain.
And give the Gowers and Garners and Henrys of the media circus a simple message; “if you want to talk with me, fine. But if it’s about “holidays” or “scarves” or non-existent $100,000 bottles of wine – don’t expect any co-operation from me when you’re vying for information. Because I’m just as likely to give it to your competitors instead.”
So stay aloof and don’t buy into being “packaged” by the media.
It seems to work for Key.
Meanwhile, lest we forget this shameful episode…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:22 PM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor*
NZ Herald
It is now nearly one month since your editorial, “Cries of bias will not stop reporting”, where the NZ Herald tried – to no avail – to justify it’s campaign of lurid allegations and sensationalised headlines against Labour leader, David Cunliffe.
So where are we now with the Donghua Liu Affair?
Claims of a $100,000 bottle of wine – retracted.
Claims of a $15,000 book – still not proven.
Claims of a Yangtze River boat-trip and $2000 donation to a rowing club – shown to be one businessman’s ineffectual efforts to ‘curry favour’ with then-Minister, Rick Barker. (One doubts that a free feed and two grand donated to a rowing club would “buy” much in the way of favours from a Backbencher, much less a Crown Minister.)
Where does that leave your paper which has promised “further revelations”? Where is the “evidence” promised by the Herald?
And why have Donghua Liu’s “signed statements” still not been made public so we may judge for ourselves as to the value of his claims?
This has been a shameful, sordid episode from the Herald and will be long remembered by many as an example why journalists rank low on surveys of trusted professions – just marginally above used-car salesmen, politicians, telemarketers, and prostitutes (no offence intended to the latter two).
Indeed, the public will have every justification in treating with total scepticism any future story involving David Cunliffe (or any other senior Labour politician).
This has not been the Herald’s finest moment.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
* Note: the matter of the Herald’s reporting of the Donghua Liu Affair is now a subject of a Press Council complaint, laid by this blogger, as well as OIA lodgements with the offices of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Immigration.
.
References
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
Radio NZ: Ministers accused of bullying Turei
TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
Previous related blogposts
John Key, Minister for Tourism, MIA
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Categories: Media, The Body Politic
David Cunliffe, Donghua Liu, Duncan Garner, John Armstrong, media beat-up, NZ Herald, Patrick Gower
The Donghua Liu Affair: responses from NZ Herald and Prime Minister’s Office – Is the PM’s office fudging?
11 July 2014
20 comments
.
.
1. To re-cap
.
The Donghua Liu Affair hit the headlines on 18 June, with allegations that David Cunliffe wrote a letter in 2003, on behalf of business migrant, Donghua Liu.
Four days later, on Sunday 22 June, the Herald ran stories alleging massive donations to the Labour Party by Liu. Tabloid- style stories of $100,000 paid for a bottle of wine and $15,000 for a book, along with a $50,000-$60,000 dinner party hosted for then Labour minister, Rick Barker, and a donation to a rowing club, raged for several days.
By Wednesday, on 25 June, the Herald was forced to retract Liu’s claims. The “new” story was that Liu’s “donation” was,
“… close to $100,000 and that is my closing comment in my statement…that is how much I believe I have donated in total to Labour and some of their MPs during their last term in Government.”
The so-called Yangtze River boat “dinner for Rick Barker” turned out to be some sort of staff function that Liu had invited the Labour minister to attend.
Only Liu’s donation – of $2,000 – to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club, was confirmed. Considering that any “link” between the NZ Labour Party and Hawkes Bay Rowing Club is tenuous at best (Barker’s daughter was a member of the club), the value of this aspect of the Liu Affair is dubious, to put it mildly.
Cunliffe’s 2003 letter was far from “avocating on Liu’s behalf”. Instead, the 11 April 2003 letter turned out to be a stock-standard inquiry sent to Immigration NZ with the rather banal request ,
“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 period [sic] in which he could expect a decision on his case.”
Requesting “an estimated period of time period” seems a stretch to describe it as advocating.
Accordingly, this blogger lodged a formal complaint with the Herald’s editor-in-Chief, and the Office of the Prime Minister.
.
2. The NZ Herald – formal complaint & Murphy’s response
.
On 28 June, I emailed a formal complaint to Tim Murphy, the Herald’s editor, on how he and his staff had conducted themselves regarding the Liu Affair;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
date: Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM
subject: Formal Complaint to NZ Herald’s stories on Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others
Kia ora Mr Murphy,Thank you for your response, dated 27 June, which I consider an inadequate response to my earlier email to you
Further to your response to me, you may consider this a formal complaint regarding the nature of your paper’s stories regardiing Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others.
1. On 18 June, your paper published stories relating to a letter written by current Labour MP, David Cunliffe to the Immigration Service, dated 11 April 2003. In several subsequent stories referring to this letter, the Herald omitted any reference to the date on this letter, thereby suggesting to readers that the letter was recently written.
Examples:
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Ref: Liu: $100k not just for wine – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281832
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The consequence of this omission in several Herald stories is that readers who are unaware of all the facts may be led to the impression that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was a more recent event, and therefore not give due weight to his explanation that he was unaware of an eleven year old letter due to the passage of time and thus not recalling the incident.
Therefore, your reporting of this event, and omitting to refer to the letter as a “2003 letter”, is mis-leading by omission of a salient fact.
2. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $15,000 for a book at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 21 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“National declared a $22,000 donation in 2012, but Labour found no records of Liu donations after the Herald revealed that he paid $15,000 for a book at an auction fundraiser in 2007.”
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The Herald presented an unsubstantiated claim as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that this claim was verified as true.
This was mis-leading reporting of a salient event.
3. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 22 June, where Bevan Hurley wrote;
“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.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
This claim was subsequently amended on 25 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“Controversial businessman Donghua Liu has issued a new statement to the Herald confirming “close to” $100,000 in total payments to Labour and its MPs – including anonymous donations – but clarifying that the money was not for one bottle of wine.”
Ref: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Between 22 June and 25 June, the Herald has presented Liu’s claims regarding paying $100,000 for a bottle of wine as fact.
But Liu’s claims were not only unsubstantiated claims without evidence, but also Liu did not make a formal affidavit which would have given greater legal standing to his claims.
The Herald chose to base their stories on;
1. one man’s claims,
2. a “signed statement” rather than an affidavit,
3. no evidence,
4. no witnesses.The Herald presented unsubstantiated claims as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that his claims were verified as true.
4. On 22 June, Bevan Hurley wrote in the NZ Herald that the paper had obtained a copy of Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” which made several claims;
“The embarrassing revelations are contained in a signed statement from Liu, which the Herald on Sunday has obtained.”
Ref: Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
The Herald has not released a verbatim copy of Liu’s “signed statement”, despite making public David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter on 18 June,
Ref: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276510
It is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable that the Herald has not released, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” as it did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
It is unfair because the public have recourse to only one side of the story and access to only one letter, written in 2003, but not the more recent document by Liu.
It is unreasonable, because if the Herald saw fit to quote from Liu’s “signed statement”, then it should publish the entire document, in full and verbatim, so that the public can make their own conclusions on Liu’s claims.
Otherwise, by using only excerpts, the Herald has presented only a restricted version of Liu’s statement.
The lack of full disclosure has led to the Herald presenting mis-information. This was admitted by the paper on 25 June, when Liu changed his story;
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
On 27 June, a Herald editorial admitted that it had mis-reprtesented facts based on Liu’s claims;
“We regret having reported inflated and conflated dollar figures.”
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539It is unconscionable that the Herald refused to publish either Liu’s original “signed statement” or his subsequent “clarification”.
The role of the media is to present information to the public – not to restrict it’s availability.
There are few reasons why a media outlet might not disclose information;
1. Court suppression orders,
2. Where a victim of a crime, or witness, might be harmed or otherwise impacted,
3. Where children are involved.
4. Where information might be defamatory and actionable.Liu’s “signed statement” does not fit criterias 1, 2, or 3.
Does it fit criteria #4?
If so, and if the document is defamatory and actionable, is that why the Herald chose not to publish it, verbatim?
Herald editor, Tim Murphy, alluded to this in a Radio NZ interview on 23 June.
Ref: New Zealand Herald stands by its story – http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20140623-0732-new_zealand_herald_stands_by_its_story-048.mp3
If Liu’s “signed statement” could not be used because it contained unsubstantiated claims and statements that were potentially defamatory and actionable – why was the document used at all, as a basis upon which to publish a series of stories?
5. On 18 June, the Herald’s chief political commentator, John Armstrong, wrote a column that was highly condemnatory of David Cunliffe, and called for his resignation.
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
(A) At no time did Armstrong refer to the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to the Immigration Service had been written in 2003. As outlined above, this omission of fact would have mis-lead any reader who was unaware of all facts pertaining to Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
(B) By omitting the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration Service was eleven years old, Armstrong was able to arrive at the unreasonable conclusion;
“Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.”
This was a clear claim that Cunliffe lied.
(C) Armstrong further wrote;
“Unless Cunliffe can come up with a very good explanation, the answer has to be ‘no’.”
That statement ignores the fact that Cunliffe had already explained that the letter was eleven years old and any reasonable person would have understood that such an event would be difficult to recall.
Armstrong’s column, by itself, would amount to very little except an extreme viewpoint of one individual.
But taken in context with the Herald’s subsequent stories, based primarily on Donghua Liu’s “signed statement”, it becomes apparent that the paper has adopted an unfair and biased stance against David Cunliffe.
6. The Herald’s bias was further apparent in it’s reporting of Donghua Liu’s claims that he spent thousands of dollars on a social event for visiting Labour MP, Rick Barker. As Bervan Hurley wrote on 22 June;
“• 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.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089It has transpired that Liu’s Yangtze river boat social event was a staff party for his employees;
“”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.”
Ref: Photograph shows Liu-Labour link – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276071
Regarding Donghua Liu’s $2,000 donation to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club – which has thus far been the only claim by Liu to be substantiated – in what way is a donation from a private individual to a club evidence of wrong-doing by Rick Barker?
This incident and subsequent Herald reporting appears to be an exercise in guilt-by association or guilt-by-innuendo.
There is no evidence or claim by Liu that Barker prompted the migrant businessman to make the donation.
If Liu made the donation to “impress” Mr Barker, how can that be laid at the feet of the then-Labour MP?
Why has the Herald seen fit to spin Liu’s donation to the rowing club as somehow attributable to Rick Barker and the Labour Party?
If Liu’s donation to the rowing club in 2006 was designed to “curry favour” with the then-Labour government, it should be noted that Liu had already been granted residency two years before, in 2004 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10172715/David-Cunliffe-advocated-for-Donghua-Liu).
This was mis-leading, slanted reporting of a minor event.
7. In conclusion, I maintain the folllowing;
(a) the Herald has relied on the unsubstantiated claims of one man, that he made various donations to the Labour Party. These donations originally amounted to $150,000 on 22 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089) but were later wound back to $38,000 on 27 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539).
(b) the Herald has relied on a “signed statement”, rather than a legally binding affidavit.
(c) the Herald has had to change it’s story after Liu provided a “clarification” on 27 June.
(d) the Herald has not published either Liu’s original “signed statement” nor the subsequent “clarification”.
(e) the Herald does not appear to have conducted any investigation as to Liu’s motivation for making his “signed statement”, which was signed two days after Maurice Williamson was forced to resign after his involvement with Liu was made public.
(f) Unsubstantiated claims were presented as facts.
(g) the Herald has not apologised for promoting claims of a “$100,000 bottle of wine” or “$15,000 book” – subsequently admitted by Liu to be incorrect.
(h) the Herald has mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation to Liu’s river boat party.
(i) the Herald has mis-represented Liu’s donation to a boating club and unfairly linked it to Rick Barker.
(j) the Herald’s series of stories since 18 June has been biased against David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, and the Labour Party by distorted reporting and by improper emphasis.
(k) Reporting of Liu’s claims has not been factually based nor verified, prior to publication.
(l) The Herald’s stories since 18 June have been harmfully inaccurate, as outlined above.
(m) By not publishing, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” and subsequent “clarification”, the Herald has not disclosed all essential facts and has suppressed relevant, available facts.
I await your response and your remedies (if any), to the issues I have raised.
Regards,-Frank Macskasy
Mr Murphy replied within the required ten (working) days outlined by the Press Council for such formal matters. His response,
from: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
to: “fmacskasy@gmail.com” <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 10:45 AM
subject: FW: Formal Complaint to NZ Herald’s stories on Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others
mailed-by: nzherald.co.nzDear Mr Macskasy
Thank you for your follow up email below.
1. The date of the letter was prominently publicised at the time we broke the story and indeed we published the letter online. The residency application by Liu was in the mid-2000s and that was referenced numerous times in our coverage. We do not list all dates and facts in all subsequent references.
2. We stand by our report that a book was purchased and expect further ‘evidence’ of this to be made public shortly.
3. It is clear that the $100,000 for a bottle of wine was misreported, and was corrected as soon as further information became available from Liu. We clarified this on all our channels and in the subsequent Herald on Sunday and explained the error in an editorial in the New Zealand Herald.
4. We do not automatically make public documents which we obtain as part of ongoing journalistic inquiries. There are many reasons for this, including the conditions upon which they were obtained from whatever source and the need for us to pursue further matters contained within. While there seems to be an expectation that journalistic inquiry must be ‘open source’ this ignores these conditions and also the competitive nature of news gathering. The Cunliffe letter was obtained under the Official Information Act and was released to all media, so is thus automatically a public document.
5. You seem to have accepted without question MP Rick Barker’s claim he attended only a staff party in China. We do not accept this and expect further details of the hospitality for him and others in China to be revealed in due course.
6. It would be wilfully naïve to assume that the donation to the rowing club associated with an MP, the day after that MP has hosted Liu in the region, is unconnected to that MP. The donation was made and Liu made it with the intent of it being in favour of the MP.
In general, the Herald has been inquiring into Liu since late last year and reporting on his donations and immigration procedures and links with political parties since March. The issues raised regarding donations to Labour did not solely emerge from the signed statement but were established some time prior. The signed statement from Liu was used because it confirmed (albeit with inflated and conflated figures) matters which had already been becoming apparent to our inquiry.
We fully expect further details to come will show the Herald’s earlier reporting to have, as we have known throughout, been accurate and soundly based.
Yours sincerely
Tim Murphy
Editor-in-chief, Herald titles
I do not consider Murphy’s response to be adequate, and accordingly filed a formal complaint to the Press Council on 5 July. The text of my complaint is substantially the same as my 28 June email to Tim Murphy (see above).
The complaint is based on two Principles Breached;
1. Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
[…]
4. Comment and Fact
.
3. Office of the Prime Minister – OIA Request; PM’s response; and Clarification sought
.
On 19 and 26 June, I lodged a formal OIA request with the Office of the Prime Minister;
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM
subject: OIA Request – Reminder!Kia ora Mr Key,
On 19 June – now one week ago – I lodged an OIA request with you and your office.
My request was as follows,
Kia ora Mr Key.
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
Since then, I have not received any acknowledgement to my lodged application and require you to do so, under the Act.
If I do not receive acknowledgement to my request, I will have no option but to pursue the matter with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
I received acknowledgement of my OIA request on 26 June, and a formal response on 3 July, signed by Chief of Staff, Wayne Eagleson;
.
.
I considered Mr Eagleson’s response to my OIA request also to be inadequate. Accordingly, I wrote back;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sarah Boyle <Sarah.Boyle@parliament.govt.nz>
cc: Wayne Eagleson <Wayne.Eagleson@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 11:34 AM
subject: Re: Response to your request of 19 June
Kia ora Ms Boyle,Thank you for replying promptly to my OIA request on the Donghua Liu Affair and your office’s involvement in the matter.
I find it highly surprising that, according to Mr Eagleson’s letter (dated 3 July), that “no correspondence has been sent or received regarding this matter , and no minutes, notes, reports or otherwise have been produced on the matter”.
It seems unlikely that the Liu Affair has not been mentioned in even one email?
What correspondence was sent to the Prime Minister around 18 June, when he was in the United States?
Surely the Prime Minister’s office was in touch with him when the Liu Affair went public in the NZ Herald around 18 June?
So how can there be no emails, “minutes, notes, reports or otherwise” between the Prime Minister and your office?
Mr Eagleson’s assertion simply does not seem credible.
I await clarification before proceeding with this matter to the Ombudsman’s Office.
Regards,
Frank Macskasy
Further to that email, I wrote a follow-up to Ms Boyle and Mr Eagleson,
…it is my understanding that the Parliamentary system relating to received documents involve date-stamping hard copies of any and all documents received by an MP’s office, before being filed or passed on.Therefore, you should have a hard copy of David Cunliffe’s letter with a date-stamp imprinted on it.
In which case, why did Mr Eagleson state “to the best recollection of events a copy of the letter was received by a member of staff from this office on or around 26 May 2014 from the Office of the Minister of Immigration”?
A date stamped hard-copy would be evidence of the date it was received by a staffer, and not have to rely on solely on memory or ” best recollection of events”, as Mr Eagleson wrote.
If the 2003 Cunliffe letter was sent by email, then that document should still be in your system and accordingly still falls within my request to “provide me with copies of all correspondence”.
Regardless of whether or not the 2003 letter by David Cunliffe was received by electronic means or by hard copy by your Office, it still falls within my request to “provide me with copies of all correspondence”.Further from Mr Eagleson,
“I can confirm that this office on the weekend of 10/11 May was advised about the existence of a letter from David Cunliffe to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) regarding Mr Liu dated 11 April 2003.”How has Mr Eagleson arrived at the firm date of 10/11 May as to when the PM’s Office was “advised about the existence of a letter from David Cunliffe to Immigration New Zealand”? The specific date indicates that a record of the receipt of the 2003 letter has been kept.In which case, that record is part of my request, to ” provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording”.Mr Eagleson also wrote;“The Prime Minister would have been advised about the existence of the letter prior to it’s release under the Official Information ACT by INZ.”
That statement infers that the Prime Minister was briefed on this matter.Which further infers that the briefing took place using notes or a written agenda for a scheduled briefing session or meeting between Mr Eagleson and the Prime Minister.Again, this falls within the scope of my OIA request, to ” provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording”.I await further clarification on these points, before proceeding to the Ombudsman’s Office.Regards,Frank Macskasy
Having spent a brief time working in the Alliance Parliamentary Office in the 1990s, I have an understanding of the protocols of correspondence in MPs’ offices. Therefore, Wayne Eagleson’s 3 July letter makes no sense and is notable more for it’s omissions than facts. Parliamentary staffers simply do not rely on memory as to when correspondence and other documents are received.
It seems that there is yet more to this story than has been made public.
.
References
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
References sites*
NZ Press Council – Complaints Procedure
EPMU – Journalist Code of Ethics
* Hat-tip – Zetetic
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council.
4 July 2014
13 comments
.
.
Following the completion of my previous story on the Liu Affair (published next day in The Daily Blog) , I wrote to the Herald editor, Tim Murphy;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <editor@herald.co.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:34 PM
subject: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence
Tim Murphy
Editor,
The New Zealand Herald
Kia ora Mr Murphy,
After recent revelations, it has become patently obvious and apparent to all that Mr Donghua Liu is no longer a credible witness to any alleged wrong-doing or alleged inappropriate behaviour by David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, or the NZ Labour Party.
Mr Liu has;
1. Failed to provide evidence for his allegations of hefty donations to the Labour Party. The closest he has come has been a $2,000 cheque he gave to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club, on his own volition.
2. Mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation and attendance at a staff party, on a river-boat, in China.
3. Made no verifiable Affidavit, and provided only a “signed statement”.
4. Issued a second statement on 25 June, changing his initial allegations.
5. Offered no evidence for his second, 25 June, “signed statement”.
Since 18 June, when your reporter, Jared Savage, broke this story in a piece entitled “David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid”, the Herald has;
* published unsubstantiated allegations;
* failed to provide subsequent evidence to back up those allegations;
* published stories damaging to the reputations of David Cunliffe and Rick Barker;
* published allegations damaging to the Labour Party (during an election year!);
* published a column calling for David Cunliffe to resign (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order”), based on incomplete information, and omitting a crititical fact, namely that Cunliffe’s letter to NZ Immigration had been written in 2003, and was a legitimate reason why the MP may have forgotten the letter;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, thereby acting as a gate-keeper/censor of information that the public had a right to see;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, despite having no hesitation in publishing David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to NZ Immigration (“David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid”)
* made little or no discernible attempt to investigate the background to Liu’s allegations; his motives; and who else might have been involved.
Under your watch, the tenor of stories relating to the Cunliffe-Liu issue has been one-sided and predicated on baseless allegations.
This has been a tabloid-style, highly-emotive, unjustified witch-hunt which collapsed only because Donghua Liu’s story changed and it became apparent he was no longer a credible witness.
The Liu Affair has seriously damaged your paper’s reputation and also further eroded public confidence in the ability of the Fourth Estate to report fairly, accurately, and without bias.
Accordingly, I submitthat it behoves you to put this matter right. I therefore call upon you;
1. The NZ Herald should immediately publish a full page apology on the front page of your paper.
2. It may also be appropriate for you to re-consider your position and decide whether your role as the Herald’s editor is now tenable after this shameful fiasco.
3. On 18 June, in a highly biased, unreasonable column, John Armstrong called for David Cullen’s resignation, (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order”). I submit that Mr Armstrong’s own position as a senior Herald staffer is no longer tenable and must take his own advice and resign.
These three steps are the basis upon which the New Zealand Herald can regain it’s reputation that has been severely dented since 18 June.
Regards,
– Frank Macskasy
Note: this letter will be made public on “The Daily Blog”, and subsequently, on “Frankly Speaking” (my own personal blog). Any response you care to make will also be disclosed and made public.
.
Tim Murphy duly responded the following day;
.
from: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
to: “fmacskasy@gmail.com” <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:57 AM
subject: FW: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence
mailed-by: nzherald.co.nz
Dear Frank Macskasy
Thank you for your email below and your public complaint against the Herald.
Many of your opinions below are dealt with by today’s Herald editorial, which I attach: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539
As to your comments about John Armstrong – his opinion was responding to the revelation of evidence that a party leader had done what he had one day earlier denied doing. It was an entirely valid column. It did, of course, (consistent with the gentle approach you have taken below in regard to both John and my roles), suggest it may be in order for David Cunliffe to resign, rather than demand his resignation.
On the signed statement: There seems to be an unusual expectation being aired that inquiry journalism has now become a field in which all documents obtained are made public – a kind of open source investigative process. This, while superficially seductive, cannot always be the case in the pursuit of serious and ongoing journalistic investigations relying on confidences and respecting sourcing and legal sensitivities. Where officially available documents like David Cunliffe’s letter hurrying up the Immigration Service on behalf of Donghua Liu are released to us and to others it is obvious that they can be published in raw form.
We have, as the editorial points out, published stories inconvenient to both the National and Labour parties over the Donghua Liu donations and grants of residency and citizenship. And yes, in an election year! It is even more important at this time that issues of public interest are covered fully.
We are continuing to investigate the payments from Donghua Liu and the circumstances of his various migration approvals.
Thank you again for the email and we have no worries about your note or this response being published on your outlet of choice.
Yours sincerely
Tim Murphy
Editor-in-chief, Herald titles
.
I was not satisfied with Mr Murphy’s response, and responded with a formal complaint;
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <Tim.Murphy@nzherald.co.nz>
date: Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM
subject: Formal Complaint to NZ Herald’s stories on Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others
Kia ora Mr Murphy,Thank you for your response, dated 27 June, which I consider an inadequate response to my earlier email to you
Further to your response to me, you may consider this a formal complaint regarding the nature of your paper’s stories regardiing Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others.
1. On 18 June, your paper published stories relating to a letter written by current Labour MP, David Cunliffe to the Immigration Service, dated 11 April 2003. In several subsequent stories referring to this letter, the Herald omitted any reference to the date on this letter, thereby suggesting to readers that the letter was recently written.
Examples:
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Ref: Liu: $100k not just for wine – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11281832
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The consequence of this omission in several Herald stories is that readers who are unaware of all the facts may be led to the impression that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was a more recent event, and therefore not give due weight to his explanation that he was unaware of an eleven year old letter due to the passage of time and thus not recalling the incident.
Therefore, your reporting of this event, and omitting to refer to the letter as a “2003 letter”, is mis-leading by omission of a salient fact.
2. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $15,000 for a book at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 21 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“National declared a $22,000 donation in 2012, but Labour found no records of Liu donations after the Herald revealed that he paid $15,000 for a book at an auction fundraiser in 2007.”
Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11278520
The Herald presented an unsubstantiated claim as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that this claim was verified as true.
This was mis-leading reporting of a salient event.
3. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.
That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 22 June, where Bevan Hurley wrote;
“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.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
This claim was subsequently amended on 25 June, where Jared Savage wrote;
“Controversial businessman Donghua Liu has issued a new statement to the Herald confirming “close to” $100,000 in total payments to Labour and its MPs – including anonymous donations – but clarifying that the money was not for one bottle of wine.”
Ref: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
Between 22 June and 25 June, the Herald has presented Liu’s claims regarding paying $100,000 for a bottle of wine as fact.
But Liu’s claims were not only unsubstantiated claims without evidence, but also Liu did not make a formal affidavit which would have given greater legal standing to his claims.
The Herald chose to base their stories on;
1. one man’s claims,
2. a “signed statement” rather than an affidavit,
3. no evidence,
4. no witnesses.The Herald presented unsubstantiated claims as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that his claims were verified as true.
4. On 22 June, Bevan Hurley wrote in the NZ Herald that the paper had obtained a copy of Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” which made several claims;
“The embarrassing revelations are contained in a signed statement from Liu, which the Herald on Sunday has obtained.”
Ref: Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089
The Herald has not released a verbatim copy of Liu’s “signed statement”, despite making public David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter on 18 June,
Ref: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276510
It is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable that the Herald has not released, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” as it did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
It is unfair because the public have recourse to only one side of the story and access to only one letter, written in 2003, but not the more recent document by Liu.
It is unreasonable, because if the Herald saw fit to quote from Liu’s “signed statement”, then it should publish the entire document, in full and verbatim, so that the public can make their own conclusions on Liu’s claims.
Otherwise, by using only excerpts, the Herald has presented only a restricted version of Liu’s statement.
The lack of full disclosure has led to the Herald presenting mis-information. This was admitted by the paper on 25 June, when Liu changed his story;
Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11281460
On 27 June, a Herald editorial admitted that it had mis-reprtesented facts based on Liu’s claims;
“We regret having reported inflated and conflated dollar figures.”
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539It is unconscionable that the Herald refused to publish either Liu’s original “signed statement” or his subsequent “clarification”.
The role of the media is to present information to the public – not to restrict it’s availability.
There are few reasons why a media outlet might not disclose information;
1. Court suppression orders,
2. Where a victim of a crime, or witness, might be harmed or otherwise impacted,
3. Where children are involved.
4. Where information might be defamatory and actionable.Liu’s “signed statement” does not fit criterias 1, 2, or 3.
Does it fit criteria #4?
If so, and if the document is defamatory and actionable, is that why the Herald chose not to publish it, verbatim?
Herald editor, Tim Murphy, alluded to this in a Radio NZ interview on 23 June.
Ref: New Zealand Herald stands by its story – http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20140623-0732-new_zealand_herald_stands_by_its_story-048.mp3
If Liu’s “signed statement” could not be used because it contained unsubstantiated claims and statements that were potentially defamatory and actionable – why was the document used at all, as a basis upon which to publish a series of stories?
5. On 18 June, the Herald’s chief political commentator, John Armstrong, wrote a column that was highly condemnatory of David Cunliffe, and called for his resignation.
Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276526
(A) At no time did Armstrong refer to the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to the Immigration Service had been written in 2003. As outlined above, this omission of fact would have mis-lead any reader who was unaware of all facts pertaining to Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.
(B) By omitting the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration Service was eleven years old, Armstrong was able to arrive at the unreasonable conclusion;
“Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.”
This was a clear claim that Cunliffe lied.
(C) Armstrong further wrote;
“Unless Cunliffe can come up with a very good explanation, the answer has to be ‘no’.”
That statement ignores the fact that Cunliffe had already explained that the letter was eleven years old and any reasonable person would have understood that such an event would be difficult to recall.
Armstrong’s column, by itself, would amount to very little except an extreme viewpoint of one individual.
But taken in context with the Herald’s subsequent stories, based primarily on Donghua Liu’s “signed statement”, it becomes apparent that the paper has adopted an unfair and biased stance against David Cunliffe.
6. The Herald’s bias was further apparent in it’s reporting of Donghua Liu’s claims that he spent thousands of dollars on a social event for visiting Labour MP, Rick Barker. As Bervan Hurley wrote on 22 June;
“• 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.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089It has transpired that Liu’s Yangtze river boat social event was a staff party for his employees;
“”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.”
Ref: Photograph shows Liu-Labour link – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11276071
Regarding Donghua Liu’s $2,000 donation to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club – which has thus far been the only claim by Liu to be substantiated – in what way is a donation from a private individual to a club evidence of wrong-doing by Rick Barker?
This incident and subsequent Herald reporting appears to be an exercise in guilt-by association or guilt-by-innuendo.
There is no evidence or claim by Liu that Barker prompted the migrant businessman to make the donation.
If Liu made the donation to “impress” Mr Barker, how can that be laid at the feet of the then-Labour MP?
Why has the Herald seen fit to spin Liu’s donation to the rowing club as somehow attributable to Rick Barker and the Labour Party?
If Liu’s donation to the rowing club in 2006 was designed to “curry favour” with the then-Labour government, it should be noted that Liu had already been granted residency two years before, in 2004 (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/10172715/David-Cunliffe-advocated-for-Donghua-Liu).
This was mis-leading, slanted reporting of a minor event.
7. In conclusion, I maintain the folllowing;
(a) the Herald has relied on the unsubstantiated claims of one man, that he made various donations to the Labour Party. These donations originally amounted to $150,000 on 22 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11279089) but were later wound back to $38,000 on 27 June (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11282539).
(b) the Herald has relied on a “signed statement”, rather than a legally binding affidavit.
(c) the Herald has had to change it’s story after Liu provided a “clarification” on 27 June.
(d) the Herald has not published either Liu’s original “signed statement” nor the subsequent “clarification”.
(e) the Herald does not appear to have conducted any investigation as to Liu’s motivation for making his “signed statement”, which was signed two days after Maurice Williamson was forced to resign after his involvement with Liu was made public.
(f) Unsubstantiated claims were presented as facts.
(g) the Herald has not apologised for promoting claims of a “$100,000 bottle of wine” or “$15,000 book” – subsequently admitted by Liu to be incorrect.
(h) the Herald has mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation to Liu’s river boat party.
(i) the Herald has mis-represented Liu’s donation to a boating club and unfairly linked it to Rick Barker.
(j) the Herald’s series of stories since 18 June has been biased against David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, and the Labour Party by distorted reporting and by improper emphasis.
(k) Reporting of Liu’s claims has not been factually based nor verified, prior to publication.
(l) The Herald’s stories since 18 June have been harmfully inaccurate, as outlined above.
(m) By not publishing, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” and subsequent “clarification”, the Herald has not disclosed all essential facts and has suppressed relevant, available facts.
I await your response and your remedies (if any), to the issues I have raised.
Regards,-Frank Macskasy
.
Next step, the NZ Press Council.
Note: Anyone wishing to follow suit with a formal complaint need not write a ‘novel’-length piece like I have. A formal complaint can be a few paragraphs, focusing on simply one or two points.
Information on how to proceed is given below, under “Reference sites”.
.
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu timeline – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
Other blogs
The Standard: Take action against the Herald’s lies
References sites*
NZ Press Council – Complaints Procedure
EPMU – Journalist Code of Ethics
* Hat-tip – Zetetic
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Categories: Media, The Body Politic
Donghua Liu, NZ Herald, Tim Murphy
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
3 July 2014
11 comments
.
.
Preface
.
As the the final acts in the smear campaign that was the Donghua Liu Affair are about to unfold, and the curtain soon to fall, it is worthwhile re-assessing what has occurred; what has been learned; and the fall-out for certain individuals.
.
1. The NZ Herald
.
The NZ Herald does not emerge from this Affair very well.
From 18 June, when Cunliffe’s eleven year old letter was “discovered” and made public; to 21 June, when Donghua Liu’s first “signed statement” was reported by the Herald; to 25 June, when the Herald released a “new statement” from Liu – this has been either a cock-up of colossal proportions, or self-serving connivance, in a carefully orchestrated smear campaign.
Where does one start to unravel the mess that the Herald and some of it’s staff and editor have created?
- The sensationalist headlines that were splashed across the paper with damaging allegations, with no evidence, and based purely on one man’s “signed statement” was trash “journalism” at it’s worst.
Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
Liu’s $100k wine news to Rick Barker
Labour looks in serious disarray
Labour must cling to the wreckage
Oh David – it’s come down to a question of trust
Cunliffe’s denial has done party no favours
Cunliffe working 9 to 5 to save his job
Poisoned chalice may be leader’s saviour
etc, etc, et-bloody-cetera…
- Liu’s “signed statement” was not even in the nature of an affidavit – the latter carrying more legal weight under the Evidence Act 2006. Which means that Liu could make any wild claim he fancied, with minimal repercussions. (Not unless someone with deep pockets, and plenty of time, bothers to take a defamation case against the trouble-prone migrant businessman.)
This should have made the Herald and it’s supposedly professional, experienced staff of journalists and columnists, more cautious.
Instead we read outrageous claims of a “$100,000 bottle of wine” (or “four bottles of wine” depending on which account you read); “$15,000 books”, and “$60,000 dinners on the Yangtze River” – all without a jot of evidence or witnesses. (The Yangtze boat trip/party turned out to be a staff party that then-Labour minister, Rick Barker, had been invited to attend.)
In short, we witnessed an appalling standard of sloppy “journalism” and “trial by media” based on no evidence, and judged guilty-by-innuendo.
- This shameful style of media reporting was made worse by the likes of Jared Savage who wrote uncritical pieces on this story, repeating in a parrot-like fashion any fanciful claim that Liu could come up with. When only one of Liu’s claims was substantiated – his $2,000 donation to a boating club – it was trumpeted as “proof” that all of Liu’s claims had been confirmed,
“The confirmation comes after Labour has denied other allegations in the signed statement from Liu, including the claim he paid “close to $100,000″ for wine at fundraising auctions.”
Rick Barker had his own views on the rowing club donation, which seemed a whole lot more credible than Liu’s “$100,000 bottle of wine”. (‘Cold Duck’ anyone?)
- Or Herald Editor, Tim Murphy, on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report“ on 23 June, where he was evasive in his answers and gave no explanation as to why Liu’s “signed statement” had not been published verbatim. Murphy said on the interview that he stood by the Liu story, confidently asserting;
“Well, what’s not to stand by?”
We now know that Liu’s claims were either misleading, fanciful, or over-exaggerated and most likely, defamatory.
That is the most likely reason why the Herald did not publish, verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” It would have made them a party to a defamation lawsuit.
- But perhaps the worst offender was Herald Columnist, John Armstrong, who on 18 June, penned one of the most scurrilous pieces of “journalistic” rubbish in recent media history. Armstrong’s piece was written on the same day that the Herald published Cunliffe’s eleven year old letter to Immigration NZ. Amazingly, as Armstrong vilified Cunliffe for “a lapse of memory”, and demanded his resignation as Labour leader – he omitted to mentioned that the letter had been written some eleven years ago.
Armstrong’s piece was written and published at 1pm on 18 June – one hour twentynine minutes before Jared Savage broke the story detailing Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to Immigration NZ, on behalf of Donghua Liu.
Which suggests Armstrong’s haste and eagerness in putting the journalistic ‘knife’ between Cunliffe’s ribs.
It was not until three days later that the Herald’s other right-leaning columnist, Fran O’Sullivan, attempted to inject some degree of sanity into her colleagues with her more thoughtful, restrained opinion piece on 21 June,
Memo: David Cunliffe. Don’t let your political enemies (that includes your frenemies) push you out of the Labour leadership ahead of the election.
[…]
There is already a media-fuelled expectation that Cunliffe should either step down or be rolled so that Labour’s fourth leader in one parliamentary term can lead the party into the September 20 election.
This would leave precious little time for a replacement – be it Grant Robertson or Andrew Little – to bed their own leadership in place before going head-to-head with Key in the election campaign. It would almost certainly result in electoral defeat.
Similarly, the resignation calls Cunliffe faced after the Herald broke the story that the Labour leader had signed off a letter on behalf of Liu bordered on risible.
That letter was clearly a pro forma note written by his staffers. There was no element of special pleading. It’s no wonder he had forgotten it. It should not have sparked a Gotcha call from political journalists.
Well, I’m not so charitable.
The behaviour of the Herald (with some notable exceptions) has been nothing short of disgraceful. It has with-held information from the public. It has published defamatory claims from a vengeful businessman with no evidence to support his claims regarding Labour (rowing boat club aside). It has engaged in tabloid-style, “gotcha” political-journalism. It has demonstrated a particularly virulent style of biased, partisan reporting. It has not undertaken the most basic journalistic requirements of confirming a story before going public. It has not bothered to investigate (as far as anyone can tell) who was behind Liu’s claims and why. It has abused it’s position as a major media organisation, with it’s considerable influence in New Zealand society.
As such, to take a page from John Armstrong’s 18 June opinion piece, I issue the following;
Tim Murphy
Tim Murphy must apologise to David Cunliffe and to the NZ Labour Party promptly, fully, and unreservedly. That apology should be placed on the front page of the Herald. It is the very least that he should do as a matter of justice.
After which, Mr Murphy should re-consider his own position and decide whether his role as the Herald’s editor is now tenable after this shameful fiasco.
(See Appendix B)
John Armstrong
There is no question – John Armstrong must resign immediately. His behaviour has been shocking and inexcusable. Any notion of Armstrong as an impartial journalist was swept away with his intemperate and openly partisan column on 18 June.
To para-phrase Mr Armstrong, “he has called for [David Cunliffe’s] head to roll for the equivalent or less. Having set the standard required of others, it is incumbent on him to himself follow suit“.
When a supposedly well-educated person writes such a travesty of journalism, there is only one course of action open.
Go, John.
Just, go.
(See Appendix B)
Jared Savage
Jared was the author of many of the pieces reporting (more like cutting and re-pasting) Donghua Liu’s claims. There was no evidence to support Donghua Liu’s claims – but they were published and given prominence nevertheless.
Jared does not appear to have given any serious thought to questioning Liu’s claims, nor the motivations for them. This style of reporting is grossly irresponsible and undermines his profession.
Unlike his colleagues, Murphy and Armstrong, Jared is young and still learning his craft. The Liu Affair has not been to Jared’s credit, but hopefully he has learned from the experience. I encourage Jared to under-go a refresher course in journalistic ethics so that future reporting can be more balanced and accurate.
.
2. A more measured p.o.v.?
.
With the dust settling on the Liu Affair, and the hysteria from more ‘excitable’ media columnists and commentators dying away, I refer to the reader a more measured, thoughtful p.o.v. from Dominion Post columnist, Vernon Small, who wrote that the Liu saga hits harder when Labour’s down.
Small’s column wasn’t just a breath of fresh air, it was a full tank of oxygen in an otherwise murky atmosphere of political muck-raking, innuendo, lies, and media histrionics.
.
3. The Labour Party
.
Legal Action
Without a doubt, Labour – and specifically, David Cunliffe – have no choice. They must take legal action for defamation against the Herald. The kind of shabby, tabloid-style “journalism” shown since June 18 has further undermined the Fourth Estate’s credibility (whether Herald staff and management realise this or not, is irrelevant) and must not be allowed to become the new default standard by which editors and journalists operate in this country.
For these reasons, Labour must sue for three good reasons;
- It runs the risk that the public ‘memory’ on this incident will be fixed at the point of “revelations” about a “$100,000 bottle of wine” – not that Liu changed his story. Nor that no evidence was forthcoming.
- If the Liu Affair goes to Court, the process of discovery may reveal who was behind this smear campaign.
- If the phone tapping/”News of the World” scandal in Britain has shown us anything, it is that the tabloid journalism road, where irresponsible reporting becomes an acceptable ‘norm’, leads to unpleasant (and often illegal) consequences.
However, my advice to Cunliffe and the Labour Party is to defer legal action until after 20 September. The Labour Party cannot afford distractions this close to an election.
Rapid Response Team
Unless Labour already has one, I suggest that they create a media “rapid response group” which can ‘kick in’ when the next smear campaign rears it’s ugly head. (Mark my words, the next dirty trick is probably already in the works.)
Such a group could comprise of senior party members, MPs, legals, media minders, etc, and could ‘swing into action’ at the first hint of another event like the Liu Affair.
Every Labour candidate should have an easy-to-contact “rapid response group” team-member on their phone’s speed-dial.
Potential Allies
If the Liu Affair has shown anything, it is the old maxim,
“United we Stand, Divided we Fall”
The smear campaign was notable for one thing; Labour stood alone against the NZ Herald, other media, and various lunatic right-wing bloggers. It had few allies.
Perhaps this incident should serve as a wake-up call to Labour that it needs allies – potential coalition partners who can come to the aid of an embattled Labour Party. And vice versa.
God knows the Left has many enemies in the media, political sphere, business world, rant-back radio, and rabid-right blogs.
A more collegial and co-operative relationship between Labour, the Greens, Mana-Internet, trade unions, and other progressive organisations will be needed if future dirty tricks and smear campaigns are to be successfully resisted.
“United we stand, divided we fall” is not just a catchy catch-phrase. It actually means something.
The GCSB
Last year, John Key and the National government, with support from ACT and Peter Dunne, changed legislation to allow the GCSB to carry out domestic surveillance and spy on New Zealanders.
Of course, this does not mean that I am suggesting that when Labour becomes government, that they should use the GCSB to spy on the Herald, Donghua Liu, his lawyers, Cameron Slater, Jason Ede, David Farrar, and anyone else who might be connected with this Affair, to find out who was responsible.
I am not suggesting that at all.
That would be morally wrong.
But quite legal.
.
4. John Key
.
It was clear from Day One, that John Key had been fully briefed on David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to Immigration NZ. On 19 June, John Key said he had previously known about the letter;
“Can’t exactly recall, I think it was a few weeks ago.”
But far more interesting is that Key seems to have been aware of Liu’s “signed statement” prior to the Herald aquiring a copy of it.
Note the following article from the Herald, written by Audrey Young, when she was in New York, covering Key’s visit to the United States . Specifically, note the date; Thursday 19 June;
.
.
Note the opening paragraph;
Prime Minister John Key believes the Labour [sic] has a lot more than $15,000 in donations from wealthy Chinese political donor Donghua Liu.
Key is quoted in Young’s article,
“I’ve heard the rumours and we’ll see what actually comes out but I’d be very, very amazed if the amount is $15,000,” he told New Zealand reporters.
But according to Herald on Sunday editor, Miriyana Alexander, revelations of Donghua Liu’s claims for other donations did not come to their attention until Saturday, 21 June;
But Herald on Sunday editor Miriyana Alexander said it only got a copy of the statement on Saturday and called the party within an hour of receiving it.
The date of when the NZ Herald came into possession of Liu’s “signed statement” was also confirmed as “on Saturday” [21 June], by Herald editor, Tim Murphy, who was interviewed on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report“, two days later (Monday 23 June). In the same interview, Murphy refused to say how the Herald acquired the statement.
When asked by Morning Report co-presenter, Susie Ferguson, why a copy of Liu’s statement had not been supplied to Labour, Murphy’s response was,
“There’s still more to be done. And there’s issues of sensitivities around it, for us. All these these things don’t get passed over […] I imagine it’ll come out but it just a matter of us working through some things first.”
Timeline:
19 June (Thursday): Key stated that he believed Labour had a lot more than $15,000 in donations from wealthy Chinese political donor Donghua Liu.
21 June (Saturday): NZ Herald came into possession of Liu’s “signed statement”. The Herald does not publish the “statement” verbatim, nor does it pass a copy on to the Labour Party. (A point raised by Morning Report co-presenter, Susie Ferguson in her interview with Tim Murphy.)
23 June (Monday): NZ Herald editor, Tim Murphy confirms that his paper did not acquire a copy of Liu’s “signed statement” until two days ago (21 June).
So John Key knew the contents of Liu’s “signed statement” two days in advance of the Herald.
In my previous blogpost (The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?) I posed these questions;
- Who had access to the Prime Minister in such a way that he could be briefed, with such detail, in advance, on Cunliffe’s letter and Liu’s “signed statement”?
- Who was involved in encouraging Donghua Liu to make his statement?
- How did a copy of Liu’s “signed statement” get to the NZ Herald?
- What was the motivation in briefing the Prime Minister?
- Who else in the PM’s office was involved? Was it Jason Ede?
Without much doubt, Key, his ministers, and some of his closest advisors, were fully aware of Cunliffe’s 2003 letter and Donghua Liu’s “signed statement”.
.
5. Conclusions
.
1.
The Herald’s editor, Tim Murphy and political columnist John Armstrong behaved disgracefully throughout this entire event. Either through ineptitude or complicity, they allowed the NZ Herald to become a tool for a carefully planned and executed smear campaign against David Cunliffe.
In an email to Tim Murphy (see Appendix B), I call for a full-page apology to be published in the Herald.
I also call for Tim Murphy’s and John Armstrong’s resignations.
As such, after my email to Tim Murphy, and depending on his response, I will be considering a complaint to the NZ Press Council on the matter.
I may also look at other avenues such as contacting the Herald’s main advertisers.
2.
David Liu was not the instigator or author of his “signed statement”. Without doubt, it was a dirty trick of the sort that Nicky Hager warned us about in his brilliant exposé on corruption in the National Party, “The Hollow Men”.
The date on Liu’s “signed statement” – 3 May – was only two days after Maurice Williamson’s enforced resignation after being found out attempting to influence a police investigation into Liu’s assault on two women.
The close timing of Williamson’s resignation and the date on Liu’s “signed statement” was a critical mistake on the part of those responsible for this smear campaign. It ties the two events together. I believe Key’s senior media strategist, Jason Ede, and right-wing blogger, Cameron Slater were probably involved.
The motive for the smear campaign was an act of utu, in retaliation for Labour prosecuting revelations against Maurice Williamson.
3.
Labour must sue the NZ Herald for defamation. Whilst smear campaigns are, unfortunately part-and-parcel of politics (because partisan voters seem not to care, as long as it is done to the “other side”), complicit or incompetant actions by media reporting such stories cannot – must not – be allowed to stand.
Unless we want to see this country’s media become a South Pacific mirror of “News of the World“, with associated phone hacking, bribery, police corruption, and god knows what else, the kind of sensationalist, headline-driven, misleading “journalism” shown by the Herald from June 18 cannot be allowed to become the new standard of media behaviour.
Even media companies have responsibilities and obligations to behave in a responsible manner.
If not, we must look to legal remedies to ensure responsible behaviour.
.
Appendix A
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:06 PM
subject: OIA Request – Reminder!Kia ora Mr Key,
On 19 June – now one week ago – I lodged an OIA request with you and your office.
My request was as follows,
Kia ora Mr Key.
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
Since then, I have not received any acknowledgement to my lodged application and require you to do so, under the Act.
If I do not receive acknowledgement to my request, I will have no option but to pursue the matter with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
An hour later, I received an emailed acknowledgement to my OIA request.
.
Appendix B
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Tim Murphy <editor@herald.co.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:34 PM
subject: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence
Tim Murphy
Editor,
The New Zealand Herald
Kia ora Mr Murphy,
After recent revelations, it has become patently obvious and apparent to all that Mr Donghua Liu is no longer a credible witness to any alleged wrong-doing or alleged inappropriate behaviour by David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, or the NZ Labour Party.
Mr Liu has;
1. Failed to provide evidence for his allegations of hefty donations to the Labour Party. The closest he has come has been a $2,000 cheque he gave to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club, on his own volition.
2. Mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation and attendance at a staff party, on a river-boat, in China.
3. Made no verifiable Affidavit, and provided only a “signed statement”.
4. Issued a second statement on 25 June, changing his initial allegations.
5. Offered no evidence for his second, 25 June, “signed statement”.
Since 18 June, when your reporter, Jared Savage, broke this story in a piece entitled “David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid“, the Herald has;
* published unsubstantiated allegations;
* failed to provide subsequent evidence to back up those allegations;
* published stories damaging to the reputations of David Cunliffe and Rick Barker;
* published allegations damaging to the Labour Party (during an election year!);
* published a column calling for David Cunliffe to resign (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order“), based on incomplete information, and omitting a crititical fact, namely that Cunliffe’s letter to NZ Immigration had been written in 2003, and was a legitimate reason why the MP may have forgotten the letter;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, thereby acting as a gate-keeper/censor of information that the public had a right to see;
* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, despite having no hesitation in publishing David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to NZ Immigration (“David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid“)
* made little or no discernible attempt to investigate the background to Liu’s allegations; his motives; and who else might have been involved.
Under your watch, the tenor of stories relating to the Cunliffe-Liu issue has been one-sided and predicated on baseless allegations.
This has been a tabloid-style, highly-emotive, unjustified witch-hunt which collapsed only because Donghua Liu’s story changed and it became apparent he was no longer a credible witness.
The Liu Affair has seriously damaged your paper’s reputation and also further eroded public confidence in the ability of the Fourth Estate to report fairly, accurately, and without bias.
Accordingly, I submit that it behoves you to put this matter right. I therefore call upon you;
1. The NZ Herald should immediately publish a full page apology on the front page of your paper.
2. It may also be appropriate for you to re-consider your position and decide whether your role as the Herald’s editor is now tenable after this shameful fiasco.
3. On 18 June, in a highly biased, unreasonable column, John Armstrong called for David Cullen’s resignation, (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order“). I submit that Mr Armstrong’s own position as a senior Herald staffer is no longer tenable and must take his own advice and resign.
These three steps are the basis upon which the New Zealand Herald can regain it’s reputation that has been severely dented since 18 June.
Regards,
– Frank Macskasy
Note: this letter will be made public on “The Daily Blog”, and subsequently, on “Frankly Speaking” (my own personal blog). Any response you care to make will also be disclosed and made public.
.
References
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
Legislation: Evidence Act 2006
Radio NZ: Newspaper stands by donation claims
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: Liu donation to rowing club confirmed
Radio NZ: Morning Report – New Zealand Herald stands by its story
NZ Herald/Hawkes Bay Today: Saga returns to bite Rick Barker
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: Fran O’Sullivan: Unfounded resignation calls should be far from Cunliffe’s mind
Auckland University of Technology: Journalism Major – Bachelor of Communication Studies
Dominion Post: Liu saga hits harder when Labour’s down
Wilson Harle: Overhaul of New Zealand’s Discovery Rules
Radio NZ: Cunliffe accuses Govt of smear campaign
Radio NZ: Newspaper stands by donation claims
Fairfax media: Labour fights new Liu donation claims
TV3: Maurice Williamson resigns as minister
Additional
Twitter: Jared Savage
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
NZ Herald: Liu: $100k not just for wine
Previous related blogposts
The Donghua Liu timeline – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
1 July 2014
19 comments
.
.
Continued from: The Donghua Liu timeline – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
.
1. Preface
.
On 23 June, I described a sequence of events relating to business migrant, Donghua Liu, which culminated in the NZ Herald’s publication of an eleven year old letter written by David Cunliffe, to Immigration NZ. The letter, as we all know by now, was fairly innocuous;
“I have been approached by my constituent Donghua Lui [sic] who is concerned at the time it is taking to process his Investment Category application.
Mr Liu’s [sic] application was accepted for processing by the Business Migration Branch on 13 August 2002.
Mr Lui [sic] wishes to set up a joint venture including Well Lee Ltd, Equus Hawk o8 ltd and Tan Long Property Development Co Ltd who will export large quantities of agricultural and horticultural products to China.
It is hope that products from the company will be available to the market in July 2003.
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 period [sic] in which he could expect a decision on his case.
Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
Yours sincerely
David Cunliffe
MP for New Lynn”
Trying as hard the National Party and it’s friends in right-wing blogs and mainstream media could, the public could not get too ‘antsy’ about a letter written more than a decade ago. When the letter was published, 99% of readers could see for themselves that, far from “advocating” for Liu, it simply asked the ordinary question; “ However it would be very helpful to Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time period [sic] in which he could expect a decision on his case.”
It was the sort of letter every MP has written to a government department. The same government departments which, as an article of faith, are always “inefficient” and “slow” to respond to taxpayers’ needs, according to right-wingers.
.
2. NZ Herald
.
Not so innocuous though was the subsequent “signed statement”, by Donghua Liu, which the NZ Herald supposedly has in it’s possession.
This “signed statement” is notable for the following;
1. It was written by Donghua Liu, who had close links with Maurice Williamson, the former minister who helped Liu buy a holiday-home next to his, and carried out maintenance/renovation work on it.
2. It was allegedly written on 3 May – two days after the forced resignation of Maurice Williamson, as a minister in this government. This was confirmed by NZ Herald editor, Tim Murphy, speaking on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report“ on 23 June which seemingly confirmed Liu’s motivation in penning this document,
“His reaction was, in writing this, I understand, was in light of the Maurice Williamson affair and Labour’s claims immediatly after that.”
3. The document Liu has signed is described by the NZ Herald as a “signed statement” – not an affidavit. An affidavit is covered under the Evidence Act 2006. Signing an affidavit knowing it to be false carries legal penalties. Signing a “statement” is not covered under the Act and has few consequences – except for defamation purposes (more on that point in a moment).
4. The NZ Herald published an eleven year old letter written by David Cunliffe on June 18 – “after documents were released under the Official Information Act earlier today“. That online article was written by “New Zealand Herald’s investigations editor”,
5. NZ Herald editor, Tim Murphy, interviewed on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report“ on 23 June, said that the Herald received a copy of Donghua Liu’s 3 May signed statement “on Saturday” [21 June]. Murphy confirms that the document was a statement, not an affidavit. Murphy refused to say how the Herald acquired the statement.
6. When asked by Morning Report co-presenter, Susie Ferguson, why a copy of Liu’s statement had not been supplied to Labour, Murphy’s response was,
“There’s still more to be done. And there’s issues of sensitivities around it, for us. All these these things don’t get passed over […] I imagine it’ll come out but it just a matter of us working through some things first.”
7. Not only has Liu’s statement not been forwarded to Labour, but it has not been made public, in it’s entirety, either.
8. Considering that Cunliffe’s’s 2003 letter was published at lightning speed, on the same day, by the Herald – there are questions which demand an answer;
- Why has the same media outlet not published Liu’s “signed statement” as well?
- What are the “ issues of sensitivities” that Murphy referred to in his 23 June interview? What are the “things” that need to be “worked through first”?
- Why has he refused to make available to the Labour Party, a copy of the letter?
9. It seems inconceivable that a media outlet which has, as it’s main priority to publish news, is actively suppressing information that the public has a right to know. Since when did the Herald start to with-hold the news? And why?
10. Is it because Liu’s letter is defamatory, and contains allegations that are dubious and potentially actionable?
.
3. Donation claims
.
In his supposed “signed statement” – which the country has not seen or read – Liu claims that he made three donations, (as well as “entertaining previous Labour Govt minister, Rick Barker, at a dinner in 2007);
- a donation to a rowing club
- $15,000 for a book “autographed be Helen Clark“
- $100,000 for four bottles/1 bottle of wine, again “autographed by Helen Clark“
On 24 June, the Herald confirmed that that Liu donated $2,000 to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club. Journalist, Jared Savage (more on him in a moment), declared triumphantly,
A donation from Donghua Liu to a rowing club linked to a former Labour Cabinet minister has been confirmed…
[…]
The confirmation comes after Labour has denied other allegations in the signed statement from Liu, including the claim he paid “close to $100,000” for wine at fundraising auctions.
[…]
Liu’s claims of donations to Labour include a signed statement saying he paid close to $100,000 for wine at an auction fundraiser in 2007.
The Herald has also been told he paid $15,000 for a book signed by Helen Clark, Prime Minister at the time. Labour says it has so far been unable to find records of the donations.
It took less than 45 minutes for two prominent right-wing bloggers to trumpet victory;
“Labour have been basically suggesting Liu is mistaken or a liar. They should be very worried that this minor donation has been confirmed, because if he is correct on a $2,000 donation, it is unlikely he’s got around a $100,000 donation.” – Kiwiblog
“Mr Liu has started that process, by confirming one of the donations….if one is correct perhaps the rest are too. Jared Savage continues his death by a 1000 cuts on Labour.” – Whaleoil
Whaleoil’s blogpost is timed at 3.13pm – precisely 15 minutes after Jared Savage’s article went on-line on the Herald website. Fast work, eh?
However, it is fairly obvious that simply because one donation has been confirmed, does not mean that the remaining two are also authentic. Thus far, Labour’s hierarchy has adamantly insisted that (a) no fund raising events were held on the date Liu has given (3 June 2007); that the date itself – a long weekend – is not normally one used for fund-raising events; and (c) they can find absolutely no records of any $100,000 bottle/bottles of wine or book being auctioned.
If those events did occur, it would be pointless for Labour President Moira Coatsworth and Labour Leader David Cunliffe to be lying about them. It would be a matter of time before they would become public knowledge.
Of course neither Coatsworth nor Cunliffe could have known about any donation to a rowing club – Liu was a private citizen so why should the Labour hierarchy have know about where he was splashing his money around?
For Farrar, Slater, and Savage not to make that point suggests that none of them are interested in the truth so much as promoting an agenda.
With Savage, that agenda is “saving face”, after investing so much of his time on this story. The Herald has ‘pinned it’s colours to the mast’ and is committed to painting Labour as the “villain” in this story. Others at the Herald have potentially staked their journalistic careers on a set outcome to this Affair.
With Slater and Farrar, I suspect it is much, much more.
It is my honestly held belief that one or both of those two apparatchiks of the National Party are somehow more deeply involved in this affair than has been admitted.
.
4. A response from Jared Savage
.
Following publication of my previous blogpost (The Donghua Liu timeline – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media), where I wrote;
“It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that this smear campaign was orchestrated deep within the National Party, and that at least two well known National Party apparatchiks were involved.
It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that Donghua Liu was persuaded to participate in this scheme around early May, when he signed his statement. It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that he was offered, in return, that charges against him for assaulting two women, would either be dropped, or “no evidence presented” at the Court case.”
– Herald journalist, Jared Savage responded shortly after, on Twitter;
.
.
But, Savage told only part of the story (to be fair, Twitter is not the right vehicle for detailed responses).
Donghua Liu did indeed plead guilty on 1 April this year – one month earlier than Williamson’s resignation. So there could be no “deal” between Liu and National Party apparatchiks, as the event did not arise until a month later.
Case closed?
Not quite.
The facts are that;
14 March: Donghua Liu arrested and charged with domestic violence assault on two women.
1 April: Liu pleads guilty. But Liu is not sentenced straight away. His sentencing “has been adjourned for 10 weeks so Liu can attend a stopping-violence course“.
1 May: Williamson resigns his ministerial posts.
10 June: Liu’s lawyer, Todd Simmonds, stated that he would seek a discharge without conviction for his client.
22 August: Liu set to be sentenced.
5. The Prime Minister
For the following two days, Key revelled in the bad publicity for Labour;
“We’ve seen David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson in the last six months holding the blowtorch on National, expecting accountability of ministers and demanding transparency. That’s fair enough, and now the blowtorch is turned around the other way I hope they live to those standards.”
So Key knew in advance;
- that the 2003 letter existed,
- would be made public,
- and that more than $15,ooo was involved in Liu’s allegations through his “signed statement”.
Note that all this had been told – in advance – to the Prime Minister.
Which begs the questions;
- Who had access to the Prime Minister in such a way that he could be briefed, with such detail, in advance?
- What was the motivation in briefing the Prime Minister?
- Who else in the PM’s office was involved?
Whoever had the “ear” of the Prime Minister of New Zealand was of such credible standing (in the eyes of John Key), that the PM obviously took great interest in what he was being told.
And if he believed it, did he himself sight Liu’s “signed statement” as well as Cunliffe’s 2003 letter?
Could Tim Murphy, from the NZ Herald have been the source? I somehow doubt it.
This information came from those deeply involved in the Affair.
It most certainly was not Donghua Liu. He has limited english, and how much access does he have to the Prime Minister (aside from opening a non-existent four-star hotel)? And even if Liu had asked his solicitor to contact John Key – why would the PM have taken notice? It would have sounded like a crackpot conspiracy plan – and one that would have been dangerous to become associated with during an election year.
For Key to have become so involved in this Affair suggests that those involved had considerable credibility and trust.
It is also interesting to note that, of the three ministers that I lodged an OIA to on this issue – Michael Woodhouse, Bill English, and John Key – it is the Prime Minister’s office that has not responded to my request.
In the last twentyfour hours, though, it seems that Key is attempting to distance himself from this affair, speaking out publicly and demanding that Donghua Liu, “put up or shut up”;
Asked whether Mr Liu should provide evidence of his donations, Mr Key said: “Yeah, absolutely he should go ahead and do that”.
“I don’t know the merits of who’s right and who’s wrong in that case. That’s a matter for the two parties to resolve.”
It is a bit late in the day for Key to be talking about “a matter for the two parties to resolve” – as if somehow he is above petty, partisan politics. Not when all his comments have fanned the flames of this Affair. As Adam Bennett wrote for the Herald,
Mr Key and National have profited from the controversy around Liu’s claims of donations to Labour including his signed statement saying he paid close to $100,000 for wine at an auction fundraiser in 2007.
Bennett’s piece is one of a handful that have started appearing in the MSM in the twentyfour hours.
Another is this item, from Fairfax media – curiously unattributed – which, for the first time, asked a serious question, ” if the statement could have been written by a National Party figure“.
Key is now rattled. The media (or at least some, within the media) have begun to realise (belatedly, albeit), that this has been a carefully orchestrated political dirty trick.
That is why Key is now playing the Prime Ministerial Paragon of Virtue, saying that “he agreed Liu should front up with evidence of the gift“.
What seemed like a “cunning plan” at the time has slowly turned on it’s orchestrators and now real questions are being asked – like who told the Prime Minister. Key’s responses, thus far, have been evasive, and indicate that he is hiding something;
“I was told that there was [donations to Labour]. I’m not going to talk about my sources.”
And,
“People tell me things, I hear things all the time,” he said.
He said he would not “go through that” when asked if his source was the right-wing blogger Whaleoil and would not go into whether he had seen the transcript of Liu’s statement.
Something that, if uncovered, could lose him the election and end his political career.
Which, I suspect, Mr Key is well aware of.
.
Cameron Slater (L) and John Key (R)
.
.
6. Conclusions
.
1. An open letter to the NZ Herald
Kia Ora Mr Murphy,
Thus far your paper has decided not to release the Donghua Liu “signed statement”. This is unconscionable and goes against everything that newspapers are predicated upon; the freedom of the press to publish without fear or favour.
Well, you are exhibiting fear of something and appearing to favour someone.
How else can we begin to understand why you are with-holding this document from the public?
Why is it that I, a part-time blogger, with no training in journalism, and not paid a cent for my efforts, is having to ask questions and demand answers that your paper has so far been unwilling to do?
What is that your paper is hiding?
Do you not trust the public to read Donghua’s statement and come to their own conclusions?
It is a sad day for the Fourth Estate when it is seen to be with-holding facts and suppressing information.
The saddest, most depressing thing in all this? You have not been censored by an authoritarian dictatorship. You have done it to yourself.
You have broken faith with the public.
-Frank Macskasy
2. An open letter to Cameron Slater
Kia Ora Cam,
Well played. But you forgot one, tiny, little, itsy-bitsy thing…
New Zealand is a small country. Secrets don’t stay secret for long. So prepare to be sprung and hung out to dry.
You’ve just brought down your own favoured government and may’ve ended Key’s career.
Thank the gods you’re not on our side.
Cheers bud,
-Frank
3. An open letter to the Prime Minister
Kia Ora Mr Key,
Again, well played. Strangely enough, I don’t actually blame you or begrudge you. Politics, after all, is a grubby game and we, the people, keep electing politicians willing and able to play dirty.
And who’s to know that Labour mightn’t have done the same thing had the jandal been on the other foot, eh?
But, it’s Game Over, sir.
Your party has a philosophy that is mighty big on taking Personal Responsibility. Well, it’s time to show some of that responsibility-taking.
It’s really time to answer some straight questions with straight answers. No more bullshit. No more spin. No more deflecting to what the Other Side has done.
Who told you about Cunliffe’s letter and Liu’s “signed statement”?
Who was involved in encouraging Donghua Liu to make his statement?
How did it get to the NZ Herald?
And who, in your office, was involved in this? Was it Jason Ede?
It really, really is time to come clean on this.
Because in the end, the truth will out.
-Frank Macskasy
4. An open letter to Jared Savage
Kia Ora Jared,
I think you should cast your attention on the cast of characters outlined above – and not on bloggers raising questions.
You’ll get better answers.
Cheers,
-Frank Macskasy
.
References
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
Radio NZ: Morning Report – New Zealand Herald stands by its story
NZ Herald: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
TV3: Maurice Williamson resigns as minister
Otago Daily Times: Williamson used Liu’s holiday home
NZ Herald: Labour Party hits back at donation claims
Legislation: Evidence Act 2006
Radio NZ: Morning Report – New Zealand Herald stands by its story
Radio NZ: Newspaper stands by donation claims
TV3: Liu hits back in Labour donations saga
NZ Herald: Liu donation to rowing club confirmed
Kiwiblog: One Liu donation confirmed
Whaleoil: One donation confirmed from Donghua Liu’s statement, what next Mr Cunliffe?
TV1 News: Labour – No fundraiser on date Liu claims he made donation
NZ Herald: Labour Party hits back at donation claims
The Standard: The middle of Queens birthday weekend? Yeah right!
Fairfax media: Labour fights new Liu donation claims
Herald on Sunday: Herald on Sunday editorial – Labour looks in serious disarray
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
Twitter: The Daily Blog
NZ Herald: Businessman in citizenship row up on violence charges
TV3: Maurice Williamson resigns as minister
TV3: Liu seeks discharge without conviction
Ministry of Justice: Suspended sentences
Fairfax media: David Cunliffe digs in amid rumours, poll woe
NZCity: Key rejects smear campaign accusation
Radio NZ: Cunliffe accuses Govt of smear campaign
MSN News: Key knew about Liu’s signed statement
The Daily Blog: Let’s cast the net and see what rotten fish we catch
NZ Herald: Liu should reveal his evidence, says Key
Fairfax media: Prime minister’s lips sealed on Liu leaker
Radio NZ: PM not saying who told him of claims
Additional
Radio New Zealand News: Originally aired on Hourly News, Tuesday 24 June 2014, 1PM
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
28 June 2014
18 comments
.
.
Preface
“The style of political journalism is an important issue as increasing political resources go into controlling news and there are fewer news media resources available to cut through the spin. Such a situation plays into the hands of the Croby/Textor political manipulators. Their aim is not to create interested, intelligent and engaged citizens, because that is not in their clients’ short-term interests. Their job is easier if the public is ‘sick’ of politics, ‘bored’ by the election and not thinking hard about the issues – and not challenged by a strong, independent media. Vote winning can then be the science of winning people over via vague feelings of self-interest, indignation, fear or jealousy.” – Nicky Hager, p262, “The Hollow Men“
.
Timeline
11 April 2003: David Cunliffe writes to Immigration NZ, on behalf on his constituent, Donghua Liu;
“I have been approached by my constituent Donghua Lui [sic] who is concerned at the time it is taking to process his Investment Category application.
Mr Liu’s [sic] application was accepted for processing by the Business Migration Branch on 13 August 2002.
Mr Lui [sic] wishes to set up a joint venture including Well Lee Ltd, Equus Hawk o8 ltd and Tan Long Property Development Co Ltd who will export large quantities of agricultural and horticultural products to China.
It is hope that products from the company will be available to the market in July 2003.
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 period [sic] in which he could expect a decision on his case.
Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.
Yours sincerely
David Cunliffe
MP for New Lynn”
2004: Donghua Liu granted permanent residency by then-immigration minister Damien O’Connor, against official advice.
2006: Donghua Liu claims that he;
…visited Barker in Hawke’s Bay… 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.
(The claim is made eight years later.)
3 June 2007: Donghua Liu claims that he supposedly won a $15,000 signed book at a Labour Party fundraising auction.
In the same year, he also claims to have paid “close to $100,000” for four bottles of wine [‘Cold Duck’? – Blogger] at a 2007 Labour Party fundraiser.
(These claims are made seven years later, and the Labour Party says it cannot find any record of the alleged donations/payments. The date, 3 June 2007, is contained in a NZ Herald story, on 22 June 2014.)
Liu also claims;
That he spent $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China.
(This claim, also, is made seven years later.)
2010: Donghua Liu given NZ citizenship, by Immigration Minister Nathan Guy, against official advice, and after lobbying by Maurice Williamson, then Minister for Building and Construction, and John Banks, then Mayor of Auckland. Maurice Williamson performs the citizenship ceremony the day after it is granted, in his electorate offices.
2 September 2011: The first stage of a proposed $70 million hotel project is opened by Donghua Liu, with Prime Minister John Key attending;
The project, which is the brainchild of Remuera businessman Donghua Liu, will involve the development of open spaces, high-value residential apartments, education facilities and a new five-star hotel.
.
.
.
“My vision is to create buildings and open spaces that fit with Newmarket’s already proud heritage and community and help promote New Zealand tourism to visitors from China and elsewhere,” Mr Liu, a New Zealand resident since 2004, said today.
2012: A business, owned by Donghua Liu, donates $22,000 to the National party.
April, 2013: Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse meets with Chinese businessman Donghua Liu (which the Herald will report on 7 May 2014).
13 March 2014: John Key denies anything “untoward” in Donghua Liu receiving a ministerial waiver (from Guy Nathan) to become a NZ Citizen, which was followed later by a $22,000 donation to the National Party;
“I just don’t accept the proposition there’s anything untoward there.”
Key said a minister advocating a person for citizenship was “not at all unusual”.
Liu was a substantial investor in New Zealand and “lots of people get ministerial waivers”.
14 March: Donghua Liu arrested and charged with domestic violence assault on two women.
22 March: NZ Herald reports that Donghua Lui’s $70 million four-star hotel project has failed to materialise;
Liu also told Chinese media at the ribbon-cutting ceremony that his plans for the $70 million redevelopment of the former Carlton Bowling Club site was unlikely to go beyond the design stage unless the Government cut the $10 million threshold.
“Like many developers throughout the construction, our group is constrained by a lack of access to capital. An improvement to business migrant rules would allow the group to source the equity capital it needs from overseas, particularly from China,” Liu told a Chinese newspaper at the launch.
“Without that improvement, it is likely that stages two and three will be stalled indefinitely.”
The same Herald article refers to right-wing commentator; National Party apparatchik, and professional lobbyist, Matthew Hooton, being hired by Donghua Liu, to change business migration laws in this country;
Liu hired consultancy group Exceltium, run by political consultant Matthew Hooton, to lobby the Government over the business immigration rules.
1 May: National Minister, Maurice Williamson forced to resign after attempts by him to influence a police investigation into Donghua Liu’s alleged assault case, becomes public knowledge.
3 May: Donghua Liu signs statement claiming donations amounting to $150,000 were made to the Labour Party, which the NZ Herald will report on 22 June.
7 May: NZ Herald reports;
Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse has confirmed that he met with Chinese businessman Donghua Liu, and heard his requests for a change in immigration policy.
Mr Woodhouse said Mr Liu – who was involved in National MP Maurice Williamson’s resignation – lobbied him in April or May at the businessman’s Newmarket hotel.
The minister said Mr Liu lobbied him to change the rules of the business migrant scheme.
“We traversed a range of … issues about how the investor category could be improved, and I took on board those issues.”
Mr Liu was seeking a new immigration category in which non-English speakers could pay less than the $10 million threshold.
May 8*: Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse is questioned in the House and by media about his meetings and any National Party association with Donghua Liu. Mr Woodhouse requests information on the file to see if there is anything relevant that he needs to know about.
The Herald [also] requests Liu’s residency file under the Official Information Act (OIA)
May 9*: In response to file review, Mr Woodhouse is verbally advised – among other things – of the existence of two Parliamentary advocacy letters regarding Donghua Liu, one from Mr Cunliffe and another from the office of Chris Carter.
Weekend of 10-11 May*: Mr Woodhouse informs Prime Minister John Key’s Office of the existence of the letters.
Week 12-16 May*: Mr Woodhouse’s office receives hard copy of letters.
Mid-late May*: Mr Woodhouse’s office provides copy of letters to the Prime Minister’s office.
16 June*: The Herald run story on Labour donations and connections. The Herald’s OIA request is declined on privacy grounds. The Herald puts in a refined OIA request for MP representations for Donghua Liu to Immigration NZ.
17 June: David Cunliffe denies ever having advocated for Donghua Liu.
18 June*: Immigration NZ release Mr Cunliffe’s 2003 Donghua Liu letter to the Herald
19 June: John Key says he had previously known about the 2003 letter;
“Can’t exactly recall, I think it was a few weeks ago.”
A Radio NZ report quoted Deputy PM, Bill English;
19 June morning:
But hours later on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report programme on Thursday, Bill English had a different story, saying no one in Government knew about it until Wednesday. “As I understand it, it’s a response to an OIA (Official Information Act request) to the Immigration Service and we wouldn’t know a lot about what’s on their files,” he said.
19 June afternoon:
However in the afternoon, Mr English told reporters the letter had been sent to Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse some time ago as part of information he received from the Immigration Service after Mr Williamson’s resignation.
“For a number of weeks there were questions in the House about Mr Donghua Liu and you would expect a competent minister to get together the relevant information.”
June 19*:
• 2pm Mr Woodhouse denies telling Mr Key about the letters
• 3pm Mr Woodhouse says officials from his office briefed Mr Key’s office on the letters.
• 7pm Mr Woodhouse’s office says the minister himself told Mr Key’s office about the letters and his office also gave copies of the letters to Mr Key’s office.
19 June: Shane Jones denies he is the source of revelations regarding David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu.
19 June: Key confirms he knows more about the revelations;
“I’ve heard the rumours and in the end we’ll see what actually comes out but I’ll be very very amazed if the amount is $15,000.”
Asked if it was hundreds of thousands of dollars, Key said: “We’ll see … that’s for the Labour Party to make clear to the New Zealand public.”
20 June: Blogger lodges formal OIA request to John Key, Bill English, and Michael Woodhouse;
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
21 June: Donghua Liu claims that he has donated money “equally to Governments of both colours”.
22 June: NZ Herald publishes claim that Donghua Liu has contributed $150,000 to Labour Party. The claim is made in a signed statement by Liu. The Herald report states that Liu paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine;
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.
However, a Radio NZ report on the same day states that the money was paid for four bottles;
General secretary of the Labour Party Tim Barnett said the newspaper told him it was $100,000 for four bottles, not one, but even so, he does not have record of such a transaction.
23 June:
7.32am: NZ Herald editor, Tim Murphy, interviewed in Radio NZ’s “Morning Report“, and says that the Herald received a copy of Donghua Liu’s 3 May signed statement “on Saturday”. Murphy confirms that the document was a statement, not an affidavit. Murphy refuses to say how the Herald acquired the statement.
11.05am: Mike Williams, past-President of Labour Party, states on Radio NZ’s “Nine To Noon” politics panel, that he is not aware of any donation from Donghua Liu, nor any fund-raising event of Liu’s description, on the date Liu asserts.
“This, this, supposedly happened on my watch. And I’ve got a lot of problems with that. I think if anyone had paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine, I would know about it.”
Williams says that he and Party General Secretary, Mike Smith, were assiduous in record keeping and a donation of that magnitude could not be over-looked.
Williams also referred to Liu claiming that he donated “equally to Governments of both colours“, and suggested that if that was correct, that National had failed to properly report and account for $130,000 in donations.
.
Questions
1.
If, as Mr Liu claims, he donated $150,000 to the Labour Party in 2007, why has no one come forward to confirm this event? $150,000 is a large sum of money and very difficult to forget. Even John Key, with the best of his brain-fades, could not help but recall such an event.
2.
Mr Liu has signed only a statement, not an affidavit. There is a great deal of difference between the two forms of documents. A signed statement has very little legal standing.
But a signed and witnessed affidavit is a legal document, as outlined in Section 197 of the Evidence Act 2006, to whit;
.
197 Solicitor may take affidavit or declaration
(1) It is lawful for any solicitor of the High Court to take the affidavit or declaration of any person in relation to any criminal proceedings that are certified in accordance with this section to be pending in any overseas court.
(2) An affidavit or declaration referred to in subsection (1) must be intituled
“In the matter of section 197 of the Evidence Act 2006”, and a declaration referred to in subsection (1) may be expressed to be made under the provisions of this section.(3) No affidavit or declaration referred to in subsection (1) may be taken unless the solicitor taking it has received a written certificate—
(a) from the overseas court that the affidavit or declaration is required for the purpose of criminal proceedings pending in the court; or
(b) from an overseas representative of the country in which the overseas court exercises jurisdiction that he or she believes the affidavit or declaration to be required for the purpose of criminal proceedings pending in the overseas court.
(4) A certificate for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) may be given by any Judge or judicial officer of the overseas court, or by any Registrar or other officer of that court.
(5) If a certificate is given under subsection (3)(b), the jurat or attestation of the affidavit or declaration must state the name and official designation of the overseas representative on whose certificate the affidavit or declaration has been taken.
(6) In this section—
affidavit means any affidavit or affirmation made before a solicitor of the High Court
declaration means any written statement declared by the maker of the statement to be true in the presence of a solicitor of the High Court.
Compare: 1908 No 56 s 48F(1)–(6)
.
Making a false declaration under the Act, is covered under Section 198;
.
198 False affidavit or declaration
(1) Every affidavit or declaration taken under section 197 is deemed to have been made in a judicial proceeding within the meaning of the Crimes Act 1961, and any person who falsely makes an affidavit or declaration of that kind is guilty of perjury or of making a false declaration accordingly.
.
Which infers that the signed statement which Liu made, and which the Herald claims to have in it’s possession, does not have the same weight as an affidavit.
If it can be proven that Liu was lying, he will suffer no legal consequences.
It may explain why Liu refuses, point blank, to swear an affidavit. Why has Liu not made an actual affidavit?
3.
On 19 June, Bill English, John Key, and Michael Woodhouse, offered varying accounts when and how long, they had been in possession of the 2003 letter between Cunliffe and Immigration NZ.
It was not until some hours later that they amended their public statements.
Can they explain their discrepancies in the varying times they gave?
4.
On 21 June, Donghua Liu claimed that he has donated money “equally to Governments of both colours“.
But according to him, he gave $150,000 to Labour, and only $22,000 to National. That is not “equally to Governments of both colours” by any measure or definition. He (supposedly) gave $128,000 more to Labour than to National.
Can he explain that discrepancy in his statement?
5.
On 22 June, NZ Herald journalist, Bevan Hurley, wrote that Liu paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine;
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.
However, this was contradicted by a Radio NZ report on the same day, stating that the money was paid for four bottles;
General secretary of the Labour Party Tim Barnett said the newspaper [NZ Herald] told him it was $100,000 for four bottles, not one, but even so, he does not have record of such a transaction.
Can Hurley, or any other person working for the Herald, explain that discrepancy?
6.
If, as a 22 March NZ Herald story stated, that Donghua Lui’s $70 million four-star hotel project has failed to materialise, what action has this government taken on what appears to have been a breech of the business migration visa conditions (?) of Liu’s residency and subsequent citizenship?
What guarantee can there be, that migrants given residency and citizenship, under the Investor Plus (Investor 1 Category), and Investor (Investor 2 Category), who promise to undertake specific developments, will carry out their obligations?
What sanctions and remedies are available, should migrants given residency and citizenship, under the Investor Plus (Investor 1 Category), and Investor (Investor 2 Category), who promise to undertake specific developments, fail to do so?
7.
On 22 June 2014, Labour Party president, Moira Coatsworth categorically stated;
“No-one has provided any documentary evidence to us that contradicts our records.
We continue to call on Donghua Liu and any third parties who might have information about these allegations, including the Prime Minister, to place what they know into the public domain or to refer to the regulators.
We have had no approaches from the Electoral Commission or any regulatory agency. We have always cooperated with regulators, and will always do so when required.”
The same Herald story reveals that the Herald refuses to provide a copy of Liu’s signed statement to the Labour Party, which Coatsworth says,
“We consider this to be a denial of natural justice.”
7a. Why has the Herald refused to provide a copy of Liu’s signed statement to the Labour Party?
7b. Why has Liu refused to provide evidence of a $150,000 payment/donation to the Labour Party?
7c. How was Liu’s alleged payment made? Cheque? Bank transfer? A suitcase stuffed full of money? (Even a cash payment could be proven by showing when and where a withdrawal of that amount was made.)
7d. Can Liu provide witnesses to the event?
7e. Why has the Herald not made the statement public?
8.
Liu claims he signed a statement on 3 May 2014, to the effect that he “donated” $150,000 to the Labour Party.
8a. Why did he feel the need to make such a statement?
8b. Did someone else prompt or request for him to make such a state?
8c. Why did Liu not offer a copy to the Labour Party?
8d. Who else has a copy of the statement?
9.
9a. Who else knew about the 2003 letter, before it was published by the Herald?
9b. Was the Herald ‘tipped of’ about the letter before it lodged it’s OIA request?
9c. What was the involvement of John Key, Bill English, Michael Woodhouse, and Key’s chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson, in this affair?
9d. What active role did Mathew Hooton have, in this affair?
9e. What active role did the head of Key’s media team, Jason Ede, have in this affair?
10.
How does Liu reconcile his claims for the date of the Labour Party fundraiser being held on 3 June 2007 (as reported in a NZ Herald story, on 22 June 2014) when the Labour Party can find no record of any such event occurring on that day?
11.
Will the Police proceed in their prosecution of Donghua Liu?
Or will charges for assaulting two women be dropped “for lack of evidence”?
12.
And perhaps the last question – the most important question – why hasn’t the media been asking these questions?
.
Conclusions
- Donations via Electoral Commission
If New Zealanders cannot stomach state funding for political parties, and the elimination of private donors to parties, then the next best thing – Plan ‘B’ – is that all donations, or fund-raising over a certain amount ($1,000? $5,000?), be channelled through the Electoral Commission. The Commission would duly record each donation and donor’s details, and pass it on to the relevant party.
This might not be the solution to the problem of unrecorded donations, but it might be a helpful tool. It would certainly give the Commission an opportunity to make immediate, further enquiries relating to a specific donation. Eg; a fund-raising dinner at Antoinette’s in 2010, which raised $105,000 from twentyone donors, but which was recorded only as a ‘lump sum’ donation from the restaurant – without naming all twentyone people who gave money.
This might offer an additional measure of transparency to the donations system.
Any party avoiding the system would do so at it’s peril, eventually being found out.
- Cancel Investor Visa (Investors 1 & 2 Category)
It is perhaps time for the Investor Visa (Investors 1 & 2 Category) to be reviewed, and dumped.
The system appears to be open to rorting, with a residency-for-donations system in place that has been exploited by National (and Labour?).
But it is not just that Donghua Liu gave $22,000 to National, and was subsequently granted citizenship.
We have also seen the case of Susan Chou, of Oravida Ltd, whose company donated $200,000 in two amounts in 2010, and $156,600 to the National Party in three lots, throughout 2011 (31 May, 22 November, and 30 November). A month later, on 27 January 2012, National Government ministers approved Shanghai Pengxin’s application to purchase sixteen Crafar farms in receivership.
Oravida, as many will recall, was the dairy company at the center of a recent scandal involving Minister Judith Collins and her husband, David Tung. Tung also happens to be a company director of Oravida.
If this is not corruption, then it certainly has the perception of it.
Whether Labour has also exploited the business migration scheme is unknown. Liu’s claims may be real – or an utter fabrication and part of a very cunning smear campaign against Labour, during an election that promises to be close-run.
The only way to eliminate any possibility of inappropriate activities such as citizenship-for-donations, and other favours-for-donations, is to dump the business migration scheme once and for all.
It is simply too open to abuse.
- Extreme caution with relations with business people
If the Oravida scandal; Kim Dotcom saga, and Donghua Liu mystery have shown anything, it is that ministers of the crown should exercise extreme caution when dealing with members of the business community. Especially businesspeople from cultures where “gifting” for political patronage is considered the norm.
After the wounds inflicted on Judith Collins and David Cunliffe, and the destruction of John Banks’ and Taito Phillip Fields‘ political careers, it would be a very, very foolish Member of Parliament or Minister of the Crown, to try his/her luck with secret dealings.
We are simply too small a country.
- The C.R.E.E.P.** Team
It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that the Donghua Liu Affair has been a carefully orchestrated dirty trick, designed to smear the leader of the Labour Party, David Cunliffe.
It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that it was not orchestrated by anyone within the Labour Party, such as the ABC faction. Their careers would be gone by breakfast if it could be shown that any of them were responsible, in part, or whole.
It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that this smear campaign was orchestrated deep within the National Party, and that at least two well known National Party apparatchiks were involved.
It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that Donghua Liu was persuaded to participate in this scheme around early May, when he signed his statement. It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that he was offered, in return, that charges against him for assaulting two women, would either be dropped, or “no evidence presented” at the Court case.
It is my sincerest, honestly-held belief, that this smear campaign was designed as ‘utu’ for the forced resignation of Maurice Williamson. Donghua Liu signed his statement two days after Williamson’s resignation.
Therein lies the clue: Donghua Liu signed his statement two days after Williamson’s resignation. Because Williamson’s resignation left some very, very angry people who could barely wait to exact revenge.
It is my prediction that the truth will come out very quickly on this issue, and it will destroy National’s chances to win this election – much like “Corngate” nearly destroyed Labour’s chances to win the 2002 general election.
This will end John Key’s career.
.
.
.
* Timeline info taken from NZ Herald story, Woodhouse ‘clarifies’ story on Cunliffe’s Liu letter. Hat-tip, Martyn Bradbury, from blogpost, Cunliffe can’t remember an 11 year old letter and has to resign but Woodhouse can’t remember a 6 week old letter he told Prime Minister about and isn’t resigning?
** CREEP – Committee to RE Elect the Prime minister (See: Watergate)
.
References
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
Fairfax media: David Cunliffe advocated for Donghua Liu
NZ Herald: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’
NZ Herald: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
Fairfax media: Key – ‘Nothing untoward’ in citizenship waiver
NZ Herald: Businessman in citizenship row up on violence charges
Radio NZ: Labour has no record of reported Liu donation
NZ Herald: Labour Party hits back at donation claims
Otago Daily Times: Losing patience with politicians
NZ Herald: Citizenship, then $22k for Nats
Scoop Auckland: PM to open first stage of Donghua Liu’s $70m Newmarket redevelopment project
NZ Herald: Weeds choke $70m dream
TV3: Maurice Williamson resigns as minister
NZ Herald: Labour Party hits back at donation claims
NZ Herald: MP confirms meeting with Donghua Liu
TV1 News: Cunliffe – ‘I did not tell a lie’ about Liu
Radio NZ: Cunliffe accuses Govt of smear campaign
NZ Herald: Woodhouse ‘clarifies’ story on Cunliffe’s Liu letter
Radio NZ: PM and deputy at odds over Cunliffe letter
TV3: Shane Jones denies he is Cunliffe source
Fairfax media: David Cunliffe digs in amid rumours, poll woe
NZ Herald: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’
Immigration NZ: Migrant Investment categories
NZ Herald: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party
Radio NZ: Morning Report – New Zealand Herald stands by its story
Radio NZ: Nine To Noon politics panel
Legislation: Evidence Act 2006
Radio NZ: Labour dismisses Liu donation claims
Immigration NZ: Migrant Investment categories
TV3: Key not talking about fundraising dinner
Interest.co.nz: Govt Ministers rubber stamp Overseas Investment Office approval of Shanghai Pengxin’s Crafar farms bid
Previous related blogposts
National’s fund-raising at Antoine’s – was GST paid?
Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua)
Other blogposts
The Standard: The middle of Queens birthday weekend? Yeah right!
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
‘Tricky’ media…
25 June 2014
4 comments
.
.
In case anyone finds it hard to believe that some in the msm (mainstream media) are politically partisan, the screen-shot below – of a recent NZ Herald story – should help dispel such doubts;
.
.
Notice the two disparate images.
On the left, Key’s image portrays him as smiling and obviously confident and relaxed.His authority is not under threat.
The image on the right, depicting David Cunliffe, shows him scowling; mouth open in mid-retort; obviously in a defensive and angry position. His leadership authority is shown to be in question in that image. (Hence the old expression, “if you become angry, you have lost the argument“.)
It is a subtle piece of visual propaganda; one is calm, poised, confident. The other is emotional, upset, obviously responding to an attack.
So this is supposedly an example of an impartial, non-partisan media?
And journos wonder why a large sector of society view them with disdain and suspicion?
If the Reader’s Digest Most Trusted Professions for 2013 is any indication, journalists need to work on their integrity;
1. Paramedics
2. Firefighters
3. Rescue volunteers
4. Nurses
5. Pilots
6. Doctors
7. Pharmacists
8. Veterinarians
9. Police
10. Armed Forces personnel
11. Scientists
12. Teachers
13. Childcare workers
14. Dentists
15. Farmers
16. Bus/train/tram drivers
17. Flight attendants
18. Architects
19. Chefs
20. Electricians
21. Miners
22. Computer technicians
23. Postal workers
24. Hairdressers
25. Builders
26. Plumbers
27. Mechanics
28. Accountants
29. Truck drivers
30. Waiters
31. Bankers
32. Charity collectors
33. Shop assistants
34. Clergy (all religions)
35. Cleaners
36. Personal trainers
37. Lawyers
38. Taxi drivers
39. Financial planners
40. CEOs
41. Call centre staff
42. Airport baggage handlers
43. Journalists
44. Real estate agents
45. Insurance salespeople
46. Politicians
47. Sex workers
48. Car salespeople
49. Door-to-door salespeople
50. Telemarketers
Lumped in with politicians, car salespeople, etc, is not a desirable place, one would think.
This will be a dirty election as the Right (National and ACT) with their media allies (NZ Herald, NBR, and rantback radio hosts) pull out the stops to destroy a resurgent Left. Those who hold power will not give it up easily.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour link: More to come
Reader’s Digest: New Zealand’s Most Trusted Professions 2013
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Let’s cast the net and see what rotten fish we catch…
25 June 2014
9 comments
.
.
Let’s cast the net and see what rotten garbage we dredge up.
No doubt a request like the ones below may result in two things;
- Furrowed brows in the Prime Minister’s Department, as Jason Ede and other National Party apparatchiks work out how to fulfil their legal obligations under the Act – without disclosing how this little anti-Cunliffe campaign was orchestrated.
- Other MSM media following suit with their own requests.
National may well find that they have opened a can of worms with their dirty tricks ‘black ops’.
Here we go…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: John Key <john.key@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:35 PM
subject: Official Information Request
.
Kia ora Mr Key.
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Michael Woodhouse <michael.woodhouse@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:00 PM
subject: Official Information Request
.
Kia ora Mr Woodhouse.
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Bill English <bill.english@parliament.govt.nz>
date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 9:36 PM
subject: Official Information Request
.
Kia ora Mr English.
This is a request lodged under the Official Information Act.
Please provide me with copies of all correspondence, minutes, notes, reports, and any other written or otherwise recording, relating to any and all activities surrounding the procurement; storage; and planned circumstances of the release of the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003.
This includes a request for all communications relating to the letter between David Cunliffe and Donghua Liu dated 11 April 2003, which may have occurred between yourself; any and all staffmembers in your office; any member of the National Party; any blogger; any media person; and any other group or individual who was contacted on this issue.
Information may be emailed to me, or, if the file is too large, I can supply a postal address for hard copies.
Regards,
-Frank Macskasy
Blogger
.
.
Let’s see what the Nat’s reaction is?
And let’s see if anyone in the MSM has the intestinal fortitude to lodge their own applications or craven surrender to the National Party dirty-tricks machine..
My money is on craven surrender.
.
References
NZ Herald: National denies dirty tricks campaign against Cunliffe
Other blogs
The Standard: Good news, National are afraid of David Cunliffe
The Daily Blog: The Trap Is Sprung: Why David Cunliffe Must Not Resign
Recommended Reading (note the date)
The Dim Post: What the opposition are up against
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The National House of Cards (v.2)
19 June 2014
19 comments
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:52:49 +1200 TO: "NZ Herald" <letters@herald.co.nz>
.
The editor NZ Herald . So let me get this straight; the Nats have "found" an eleven year old letter, purportedly from David Cunliffe, relating to Donghua Liu's legitimate application to the Immigration Service. Locating a letter from eleven years ago, from a government department? I had no idea our bureaucracy was so incredibly super-efficient. It also appears that John Key and Bill English seem to have differing stories when they got hold of this mysterious "letter". Key says he "can't exactly recall, I think it was a few weeks ago." But English says he did not know anything about it. So what is the story? When did they "get hold" of this letter? Who gave it to them? And how on earth could it have been "found" after eleven years? Methinks there is more to this issue, and the dodgy shenanigans being played out by senior National ministers in an apparent dirty tricks campaign, is the real story. It is high time for Key and English to come clean. What are they up to? -Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
References
Radio NZ: PM and deputy at odds over Cunliffe letter
Radio NZ Interview: Deputy PM says Cunliffe’s credibility shot
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour link – More to come
The Daily Blog: The Trap Is Sprung – Why David Cunliffe Must Not Resign
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
