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 ‘Tova O’Brien’
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 =
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 =
When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien
30 July 2014
7 comments
.
.
It had to happen, I guess… The media pack-campaign against Labour Leader David Cunliffe has managed to plumb new depths of absurdity.
On TV3, on 24 July, TV3/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“;
.
.
The print-version on the TV3 website had this to say on the story;
.
Key nestles in with the All Blacks
.
Political Reporter – Thursday 24 Jul 2014 6:32p.m.
.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has labelled the Prime Minister a poser and an imposter after yet another photo opportunity coup.
First it was tea with the Queen, then golf with United States President Barack Obama – now he’s managed to nestle in with some All Blacks on the cover of the Rugby News magazine.
“Some people will love it and some people will hate it,” says Mr Key.
With the All Blacks almost like royalty in New Zealand it could be seen as an endorsement, and Labour leader David Cunliffe is not impressed.
“I was surprised to see it,” he says. “It’s not often you see a major sporting body getting involved in politics.”
The New Zealand Rugby Union was forewarned by the magazine.
It did nothing but request a small disclaimer that Mr Key leading the pack wearing an All Blacks jersey was not an endorsement – it was photoshopped.
“I think I need to accept that I’d more than likely make it as a mascot than a player,” says Mr Key.
“It’s posing and impostering,” says Mr Peters. “You wouldn’t put an All Black jersey on unless you’re an All Black. He looks like an imposter.”
He did not request the cover, the magazine approached him and it does not breach any electoral laws.
3 News
.
References
TV3: Key nestles in with the All Blacks
Previous related blogposts
Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Categories: Media, The Body Politic
David Cunliffe, media beat-up, Tova O'Brien, TV3
The GCSB law – Oh FFS!!!
18 June 2013
23 comments
.
Continued from: The GCSB law – vague or crystal clear?
On TV3 News, this remarkable piece of “journalism”,
.
“The law is so opaque it’s open to interpretation.”
Acknowledgement: TV3 News
.
The media in this country are asleep at the wheel. Or drugged. Something.
Their lazy interpretation of events (when they even bother to cover stories of national importance – see: Poisoned Legacy: Why is the News Media and the Left so bad at defending our freedoms?) has gone beyond incompetance – and is now firmly in the land of mis-information.
A prime example of various new media was Tova O’Brien on the evening of Wednesday 22 May 2013 on TV3 News. At about 6.5-6.10pm (and later that evening), she covered the on-going story of Paul Neazor’s report into the GCSB.
O’Brien stated matter of factly,
“The GCSB’s been cleared of breaking the law, but only just. The law ‘s so opaque it’s open to interpretation.The Prime Minister won’t won’t release the report into the spying on those eightyeight New Zealanders because it’s top secret, leaving the Opposition to continue to openly interpret it’s findings.”
Rubbish.
Has she or her news team actually read the f*****g Act?!?!
They can’t have. Otherwise they would know the following parts of the law,
.
Section 14 of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 states,
Restrictions imposed on interceptions
14 Interceptions not to target domestic communications
-
Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.
Furthermore, the Act states in at least two parts, precisely who the GCSB may collect data on;
Part 2
7. Objective of Bureau
-
(1) The objective of the Bureau is to contribute to the national security of New Zealand by providing—
- (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
- (i) the security or defence of New Zealand; or
- (ii) the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
- (iii) New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being; and
- (b) foreign intelligence to meet international obligations and commitments of the Government of New Zealand; and
- (c) advice, assistance, and protection to departments of State and other instruments of the Executive Government of New Zealand in order to—
- (i) protect and enhance the security of their communications, information systems, and computer systems; or
- (ii) protect their environments from electronic or other forms of technical surveillance by foreign organisations or foreign persons.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(iii), the interests of New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being are relevant only to the extent that they are affected by the actions or intentions of foreign organisations or foreign persons.
- (a) foreign intelligence that the Government of New Zealand requires to protect and advance—
Part 3
13. Purpose of Part
-
The purpose of this Part is,—
- (a) subject to the restrictions imposed by this Part, to enable the Bureau to obtain foreign intelligence; and
-
(b) to authorise the interception of communications (whether under section 16 or under an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation) only if the purpose of the interception is to obtain foreign intelligence.
.
The law surrounding the GCSB is most certainly not “opaque”. It fairly strait forward to anyone with a Primary School grasp of the Queen’s English.
What part of “Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident“ – do journos not understand?!
FFS!! It’s there in black and white!
The only people who’ve been seriously promoting the meme that the Act is somehow “vague” or “unclear” are the Prime Minister – not exactly noted for being 100% honest with the public – and his appointed minion, GCSB Director, Ian Fletcher.
I’ll point out here and now, this isn’t directed at O’Brien. She simply happens to be the most recent case of sloppy journos who have obviously not bothered to look up the relevant act – because otherwise they would be fully aware that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is actually fairly damned clear and unequivocal. I’ll print the relevant section again – In. Big. Red. Letters.
“Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident” ?!
The most dangerous aspect of this sloppy journalism is that the public will take people like O’Brien, or at TVNZ, or the Dominion Post, or NZ Herald, or any number of radio stations at face value. The public will not be bothered to look up the relevant legislation.
And why should they? Aren’t we entitled to have a degree of faith in the media to know what the heck they’re talking about?
Evidently not.
Each time I catch some lazy journo pushing the government-orchestrated meme that the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 is “unclear” or “vague” – I’ll be on their sad arses pointing out their laziness and sloppy journalism.
This is serious shit, people. National intends to pass laws allowing even more invasion of our privacy; more spying; and increased State power.
If it was Labour doing this, the MSM would be baying for blood and screaming “nanny state!”. But when it comes to National and it’s right wing agenda, all we get is mis-informed “news” that is not based in any reality I’m familiar with.
Jesus, all I’m asking is that the media get their story straight.
When did that ever become something we have to ask for?
It’s simple. Do your job.
For one last time,
“Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person (not being a foreign organisation or a foreign person) who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident” ?!
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 23 May 2013.
.
.
= fs =
John Tamihere – Back to the F*****g Future
3 December 2012
12 comments
.
.
Barely 48 hours back with the Labour Party and John Tamihere was playing the “Anti PC Tough Guy” again, on TV3…
On Paula Bennett,
Within hours of being allowed back into the Labour Party, John Tamihere was already shooting his mouth off, calling the Social Development Minister “that bloody fat girl”.
See: TV3 – Tamihere comment targets hit back
I have no great liking for Bennett – she is a hypocrite of the worst sort for having used the DPB and other WINZ entitlements to support herself when she was a solo-mum; to gain a free tertiary education; and buy a house, at tax-payer’s expense . All of which she has denied other solo-mums.
But what has her size got to do with things?
On homophobia,
“I don’t have a problem with gay people,” says Mr Tamihere. “I have a problem with gay marriage.”
See: IBID
So why the problem, John? Don’t marry a gay fella. Easy. Sorted.
Mind you, your constant references to gays kinda makes one think… you seem awfully preoccupied with Homo Sexual Men. Anything you want to share with us?
On women and sexism,
When asked about sexism, he responded, “What is that? I’m a man, you’re a woman”.
See: IBID
Oh for god’s sakes…
On female journalists,
“Tova, go jump in the lake you stupid little girl,” he said.
“I’ve had a gut’s full of idiots like you trying to position people like me.
“Pimply little girls in a newsroom trying to position you for being cut up on a little news bite. Tova O’Brien, where the hell do you come from?”
See: TV3 -Tamihere blasts journalist: ‘You stupid little girl’
The sad thing is that John Tamihere is an intelligent, experienced political figure and media operator. He’s not some redneck from the backblocks whose parents also happen to be brother and sister.
He proved his skills by hosting on TV3’s “Think Tank”, making that current affairs ‘chat show’ must-see television.
So why the ignorant outbursts?
Why waste energy on offensive remarks against women, gays, etc?
His outbursts may satisfy a certain sector of society – a sector that probably gets it’s “information” from the inanities of Talkback Radio. But does his redneckery add anything to our understanduing of issues?
He certainly did not behave like this on “Think Tank”.
Time to grow up, John. We need your skills as a mature man – not a self-indulgent adolescent.
We don’t need a brown version of Paul Henry. One is enough.
.
*
.
Additional
Tamihere a ‘shock jock’ with insults – Shearer
.
.
= fs =
Categories: The Body Politic
John Tamihere, Think Tank, Tova O'Brien
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Stop the TPPA
Inside Child Poverty in New Zealand
Save Radio New Zealand
Kidscan – Supporting disadvantaged Kiwi Kids
Action Stations – Getting Out The Vote!
