Labour failed to declare $150,000 from Liu

June 22nd, 2014 at 7:25 am by David Farrar

The Herald on Sunday reports:

Millionaire businessman spent more than $150,000 on the previous government, including $100,000 on a bottle of wine signed by former prime minister Helen Clark at a party fundraiser.

So Labour, which was campaigning on financial transparency in 2007, took $150,000 from Mr Liu (after going against official advice to give him residency) and never ever disclosed that he was a donor.  This shows how deeply hypocritical they are, let alone the strong possibility they broke the law with their 2007 donation return.

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.

I’ve previously said the Police should investigate. The investigation should not just be under the Electoral Act. There may be theft involved. If Liu was donating to Labour, and Labour say they have no record of the donation, then what happened to the money? Did it go directly to any MPs?

If Labour had a shred of integrity, they would not wait for a Police investigation. They should ask Mr Liu directly who he gave the money to, and in what form was it.

“This is scandalous from the public’s perspective. There has to be some sort of official investigation, whether it’s a police one or a parliamentary one,” said political commentator Bryce Edwards. “There must be some sort of official investigation, whether it’s a police or parliamentary.”

Asked about a potential investigation under electoral finance laws, Liu’s lawyer Todd Simmonds indicated that Liu was comfortable with his financial support and would cooperate with any inquiry.

This is why I believe we should have an Independent Commission against Corruption – a body which can investigate issues like that – even if there are no prosecutions – we need to have someone with the ability to find out what happened.

Liu’s signed statement was dated May 3, two days after Williamson’s resignation. It said:

• Liu paid “close to $100,000″ for wine at a 2007 Labour Party fundraiser;

• That he spent $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China in 2007; and

This is a huge issue for Rick Barker. He was required by Parliament’s Standing Orders to disclose any gift of over $500 in value.

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.

Yet Barker claims to barely know him.

Barker previously told the Herald that he could barely remember having dinner.

I like Rick Barker, but he has some serious questions to answers. I presume the Parliamentary Privileges Committee can investigate the adequacy of his pecuniary interests return.

Edwards said while it was not clear if Labour had broken any laws, public confidence in the party had been dented.

He said a private prosecution could be possible, and it was the responsibility of the electoral commission to investigate and to decide whether a referral to police should be made.

They may not be able to prosecute, but they could insist the returns are corrected if necessary (as they did with NZ First).

Edwards said the case highlighted the need for a regulatory body separate from the Electoral Commission “to look at questions of corruption and irregularities” around . Donations made at fundraising auctions or dinners are not recorded individually, but the total amount raised is declared.

That may be correct for Labour, but I’m certain that is not current practice for National. Anyone who donates over the disclosure limit is disclosed.

So what do we now know about Labour and this Liu.

  1. Chris Carter and David Cunliffe wrote letters on his behalf to immigration officials, despite him not being a constituent of either MP
  2. Damien O’Connor granted him residency against official advice
  3. He gave a donation to a club Rick Barker was involved in, and spent $50,000 or so on entertaining Barker in China
  4. He donated $150,000 or so to Labour, yet they have never ever disclosed he was a donor

The entire reason we have disclosure laws is so the media can scrutinise significant donations, and the public can form views on the appropriateness of the donations. Labour’s credibility on issues of electoral finance is now zero.

Tags: , ,

135 Responses to “Labour failed to declare $150,000 from Liu”

  1. Barnsley Bill (983 comments) says:

    When you look at the way these thieves used the taxpayer funded credit cards is it any surprise that they are up to their back wheels in cash for favours drama as well.
    Labour are not denying they got cash donations. Just saying they have no record of it. That stinks.
    Which means either one of their bagmen trousered it to distribute among people who could personally help the donor or stole it himself or Labour hid it.
    Any one of those options is a disaster for Labour.
    I don’t for a minute think Cunliffe personally saw any of the loot, he is after a multi-millionaire already, but I can certainly see him being leaned on by others to write a letter for a friend of Labour.
    Mike Williams tried to distance himself from this mess LAST SUNDAY when he claimed that if there were big cash donations from this joker it never reached head office.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wiseowl (925 comments) says:

    Barker is now an elected member of the Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

    His involvement in this situation possibly explains why he has been very quiet in the last few years.
    The suggested largesse he was recipient of should have been divulged to the public and the fact that he is now still troughing at the ratepayers expense is unacceptable.
    Was he the recipient of any donations himself? So many questions.

    Labour appear to be hiding some big ones here.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    The sleeze is finally being exposed. Not only are they a party of paedophiles, weirdos, perverts, deviants and losers, they are outright thieving liars. One only needs to look at the background of Parker . . . he even lied to Clark and got demoted. Well! They get away with most things, but at last media are obligated to do a little exposure, but thank God for Kiwiblog and Whaleoil.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    wiseowl: It is funny how these Labour leeches get into council positions once they are dumped by electors. Look at the GWRC, it even has a convicted felon amongst the socialist rejects. This is the penalty we pay for having non-ratepayers voting in local body elections. It must be stopped.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Mobile Michael (459 comments) says:

    Could the last member of the Labour Party remember to turn out the lights? And remember folks, this all started as a scandal that tipped out a National Minister – remember the barely disguised glee of Cunliffe and co when Williamson got booted? Someone in Labour should have tipped off the caucus to not go too hard on this.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 52 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. tvb (4,491 comments) says:

    He should first put his statement in affidavit form before we get too excited he made the donation. Meantime there can be a fraud inquiry into where the money went. It just maybe it was never passed on. Or the Labour Party thought they could get cute and say it was for wine and did not need to be declared.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. m@tt (631 comments) says:

    Every single one of these stories is getting us closer to tax payer funded campaigns. We don’t want that.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. PaulP (154 comments) says:

    What will be interesting is if it turns out that Labour HQ actually did disclose all of the donations that they knew about.

    Then the question will be where did the money go and who ended up pocketing it. It may be one branch worker, one MP or one Minister that received and pocketed the money. If it was an MP or Minister then that will raise even more questions. If was a branch worker then it’d be a case of theft, if a minister or MP then possible corruption.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. big bruv (14,121 comments) says:

    So,

    Who leaned on Carter and Cuntliffe to write these letters?
    Who leaned on O’Conner to grant Liu residency against official advice?
    Who pocketed the donation and who knew about it?
    Who is going to be prosecuted and charged for breaking the law?

    This thing stinks, I suspect it goes all the way to the top of the Labour party at that time, it would not surprise me if the hands of H1 and H2 were all over it.
    To those who think that it stretching things, well remember H1 is the person who thought nothing of stealing $850,000 of our money and then changing the law so she could not be prosecuted.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 54 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Longknives (4,853 comments) says:

    You guys are dreaming- The lying left are simply beyond reproach in ‘Aotearoa’…
    Len Brown anyone??

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. CHFR (234 comments) says:

    Labour’s credibility is Zero right now.

    My question for their supporters in here is do you have the courage to take back your party or are you happy with this behaviour?

    Before answering please stop and think, if I am OK with Labour doing this then I am OK with National doing it also and I will STFU with my claims of a dodgy National government.

    For the record I am NOT OK with either party doing this and fail to see how anyone could see this as proper behaviour and still consider themselves a person who can make laws for others.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Keeping Stock (10,404 comments) says:

    I wonder if Donghua Liu’s statement will be the evidence of donations that Judith has been so concerned about all week since this story first broke.

    When even a hardcore leftie like Bryce Edwards is condemning Labour, the party has a huge problem. And Mr Cunliffe cannot simply dismiss it as a Head Office issue; this is when leaders lead, by being accountable.

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

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/where-did-money-go.html

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. wiseowl (925 comments) says:

    Dead right IGM.
    And Mike Williams was campaign manager for one of the candidates in the last local body elections.

    Seemed to have plenty to throw around and the result, another lefty trougher to sit alongside Barker.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. All_on_Red (1,641 comments) says:

    Barker should resign from the HB Regional Council. His trust and integrity has been well and truly called into question.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    It’s different when corrupt self serving unionists Labour do it.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    David

    When I had regained my composure yesterday after my sides nearly split asunder at Hooten’s suggestion that liebour might not get any list MPs, it occurred to me that you are being grossly irresponsible in not accompanying these cunners/liebour threads with a warning that reading them may be injurious to health.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. fernglas (167 comments) says:

    To be fair, the dinner in China that Barker recollects involved, according to him, most of Liu’s management team, so he can’t carry the can for the full cost. But the earlier dinner and breakfast? The visit to the eighth wonder of the world, the Liu cement factory? Clearly he is lying. Add the $100k plonk and you have a former government providing excellent reason for the aspirant one to have kept its mouth shut, and the latter having neither the organisation nor the brains to do so. I don’t expect politicians to be honest, but it would be nice to think they aren’t totally thick.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Scott1 (572 comments) says:

    So sounds like Labour has a “the bottle really was worth 100,000 dollars and Helen was the donor” defense.
    Although legally they would probably use the “It is too old to prosecute” defense.

    If it is not possible to catch Labour for this then the law should be changed so that the next person who does it gets buried.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    If Barker can’t remember anything about the dinner, it may be because, in the best Labour tradition, they got rid of the Helen Clark signed evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Paulus (2,656 comments) says:

    I understand from the Herald that Mr Liu has signed an affidavit corresponding to the donation allegations.
    Certainly the Barker entertaining 1800 kms off his route is clear.
    This was done and dated 3 days after Williamson resigned.
    So quite a number of people including Key were aware of the allegations.
    Why is Mr Liu being castigated – he gave money as a private citizen and it is not his concern from then on, he assuming it went where he wanted it to – the Labour Party.
    Cunliffe has a big big problem that ever now.
    Follow the Money.
    Poor Lying Labour.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Scott1 (572 comments) says:

    fernglas,
    In those areas that they are just trying to screw you, its good to have at least a few stupid ones so they can get caught.

    Then we can push for regulation to set up the incentives so that even the brilliant ones don’t screw us too often.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    I suspect that there is a certain sphincter muscle in Hern Bay currently working overtime.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 42 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Judith, where is the link to evidence that National auctioned a tie for $50k and did not declare it?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. stigie (1,308 comments) says:

    You are right Judith, it does reek of hypocrisy, but where is your friend Penny on this scandal ?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Auberon (873 comments) says:

    What we also know DPF is that rather than campaign on the West Coast on the day before the 2005 general election, associate immigration minister Damien O’Connor flew to Wellington to draft a letter in support of Donghua Liu. He was clearly a VERY important person to Labour!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Keeping Stock (10,404 comments) says:

    No Judith; Mr Liu said he made donations to both parties. He didn’t talk numbers.

    If this evidence isn’t enough, please tell us what evidence you require; an overseas contortionist demonstrating moves that Robin Bain could not possibly have done, perhaps?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Unpopular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 32 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ stigie (812 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 8:50 am

    Why is Penny my friend? I’ve never met her, nor corresponded with her other than commenting to her on here.

    I find people who think someone they communicate with via blogs, or other similar internet sites, as ‘friends’ to be extremely sad examples of human existence. I actually know what all my friends look like in person.

    Just because I may agree with someone on various issues, and I may respect their stance, it doesn’t make them my ‘friend’.

    I feel for you if that is your only standard of friendship.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 26 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Keeping Stock (10,404 comments) says:

    During the week you called for Liu to front up. He already had; on 3rd May. You are running away from this weapons-grade hypocrisy faster than David Cunliffe is trying to.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. eszett (2,426 comments) says:

    A bit of a political huffing and puffing by DPF.

    Worth reading, a bit more balanced view.

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/maybe-it-was-a-bottle-of-armand-de-brignac-nebuchadnezzar-champagne

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Tis but a flesh wound!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Jack5 (5,144 comments) says:

    On the Transparency International 2013 index, New Zealand and Denmark are jointly listed as the world’s least corrupt countries.

    In NZ’s case how Liudicrous.

    Should Liu be allowed to stay in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Ben2001 (26 comments) says:

    Let’s have the proof. This statement proves nothing. Where are the cheques, bank records, receipts, etc. if definitive proof cab bot be produced the National Party is going to have some difficult questions to answer on their role in this.

    The whole affair strikes at the roots of democracy. Are the allegations true or fabricated. I find it very hard to believe that $150,000 can disappear into thin air.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Inky_the_Red (761 comments) says:

    $100,000 donation with no bank evidence in 2007. I have all my bank statements from 2007 hard to believe any businessman wouldn’t

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Jack5 (5,144 comments) says:

    Labour sucks and I’m all for scalping the lot of Labour MPs, but Williamson, Guy, and Banks also need to be covered by a Liu inquiry, then if the allegations stand, let MPs redeem some of their credibility by unanimously quashing any residency or citizenship status of Liu so he can be thrown out of the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Keeping Stock (10,007 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 9:03 am

    No, last week I called for solid proof of these payments being made. I have made it perfectly clear all along that word of mouth is not and never will be solid proof. If that amount of money was paid, there will be evidence in bank records etc. Therefore it can be found.

    BUT what I am saying more than anything else is that just because you are all so desperate to support Key you are blind to the fact that a Chinese businesses man with a shonky history and now on criminal charges here can somehow influence BOTH our political parties in this way.

    There are far bigger issues here – firstly that our political parties are making money using very inventive practices and not being honest about it (THAT IS ALL OF THEM) and that huge amounts of money seeming disappear in those processes and therefore there is no accountability for where they have gone and who benefited.

    Now if I have to account for every cent that I earn to the government, and pay extra tax on that – then how the hell can these people, who are meant to be our role models, who we are meant to trust basically with our lives – get away with it.

    WHY should I be told I have to vote for any of them. They are all a disgrace – they are a bunch of lying thieves, which you somehow choose to excuse because you think one party is more superior to the other – it is Theft from the tax payer, and it is fraud – and that is what they are all using as a standard here. The fact you can’t see that, that you excuse it based on your political preference, says a hell of a lot about your moral fibre. It is not acceptable *full stop*

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Pete George (23,677 comments) says:

    Andrew Geddis explains that a prosecution is not a possibility.

    It simply isn’t clear that any offence has been committed here at all. Let’s say that everything the Herald is reporting is true (an assumption we should be a bit cautious about making – the story is based purely on a “signed statement” from Liu, not even an affadavit). He gave Labour a bunch of money in 2007 in exchange for things like a bottle of wine and a book.

    Well, if you go back to the financial returns from political parties for 2007, there is listed a donation to Labour of $150,000 from “Palmer Theron, Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client” (as well as two other donations of $50,000 and $30,000 from other law firms on behalf of similaraly “undisclosed clients”). For balance, you might also note that in that year National reported $40,000 in anonymous donations, as well as $513,000 from three trusts that it had been using to launder donations previously.

    Now, was Liu the “undisclosed client” who gave Labour this $150,000 donation? Who, aside from Liu, can really tell? And if this was Liu, then no law was breached. If he gave the payment to Labour by way of a cheque from a solicitor’s trust fund, then not only did he do nothing legally wrong, but Labour (under the laws at the time) did nothing legally wrong in accepting it or listing the solicitor’s undisclosed client as being the source. That was a bad law, as I argued a lot at the time, but it was the law … and you can’t retrospectively rewrite it now.

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/maybe-it-was-a-bottle-of-armand-de-brignac-nebuchadnezzar-champagne

    It’s not a legal problem for Labour, but it’s a sizeable political problem. If there is doubt where the money has gone that puts doubt on a number of current Labour MPs.

    There’s no suggestion David Cunliffe has been a recipient, but he has had a major party headache dumped on him. It won’t go away if he just denies any personal culpability and demands evidence.

    The evidence is that Labour are in big trouble. They have to do something to dig themselves out.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Manolo (14,024 comments) says:

    The corrupt (and shameless) socialists are exposed again. Labour deserves all the “bad luck” in the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. hj (7,059 comments) says:

    National and Labour been behind the bike sheds with dodgy Chinese businessmen. So what’s new?
    It’s the system that is at fault (as much as anything); the need for political interests to pay big money to use media infrastructure.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Pete George (22,238 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Thank you Pete. That is basically what I have been trying to say. It is a huge problem, because when people can give such huge amounts of money, clearly they have influence. Our politics are being influenced by those who can afford it, and those who can’t, seemingly get ignored.

    And we dare to stand up and say we oppose countries who aren’t democratic – well what is democratic about what is happening here?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Judith.

    We are not blind to the fact that Liu has chosen to donate to National and Labour. He has the right to do so, regardless of what you may think of him.

    What you appear to be blind to, and I welcome your comment on this, is that when a donation to a political party occurs, there is an obligation on the recipient to declare and account for said donation.

    National did so, Labour did not. An undeclared or anonymous donation is more likely when a ‘favour’ is required in response. Now this may not be the case. It was not the case with John Banks when Kim Dot Com tried to cash in on his donation. However, there are those in Labour who are in the same situation as Banks is now, and the police must investigate, given the fallout over the Banks case..

    And lets not forget, Banks declared the donation, just not the source. It would appear that Labour did not even do that.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    @Matt
    “Every single one of these stories is getting us closer to tax payer funded campaigns. We don’t want that.”

    Nice concern troll. Every single one of these stories will ensure current and future party fundraisers are squeaky clean, as they should be.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hj (7,059 comments) says:

    Philip Ure
    liu has signed a detailing-statement saying he gave $150,000 to the labour party..

    ..and maybe now the question needs to be asked..

    ..to who..?

    ..or will it be group-denial on the menu again today..?

    ..and where is the man who can answer all of these pressing-questions..?

    ..questions that wont just go away..

    ..where’s waldo/mike williams..?

    ..labours’ bag-man at that time..
    Reply

    karol 2.1
    22 June 2014 at 7:31 am

    phil, today we have something substantial to ask questions about.

    Like Edwards you seem keen to get the boot into Labour as often as possible, whether there’s any evidence or not.

    These are issues about Labour in the past in government. Nothing to do with Cunliffe, everything to do with the MO of soft neoliberal Labour.

    It’s really good to look at such things in the light of substantial evidence, and for Labour to clear out any remnants of neoliberal collusion.

    Rick Barker is history. Some of the likes of Mallard, King etc, seen taking Sky City hospitality at sports events…. time this kind of thing was relegated to history.

    And generally, we need more transparency around funding for poltiical parties, and measures to lower limits on the amounts of funding that come frome private donations.
    http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22062014/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ slightlyrighty (2,477 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 9:28 am

    National has NOT declared all their donations. Where is the declaration for the $50,000 paid for John Key’s tie? Where is the declaration for the money paid for John Key’s golf rounds, where is the money for the other ‘charity’ auctions and dinners that were run and the profits paid to the ‘National’ charity.

    National declare $22,000, but according to Liu, he gave both parties the same amounts.

    Labour are not in the same position as Banks. Banks directly and personally lied about all sorts of things – just which direct member of Labour are you going to take to court, when you actually have no proof the money was actually paid? Our Courts simply do not operate on gossip – sorry.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 27 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Caleb (479 comments) says:

    Anyone fancy a letter to the Hawkes Bay today?

    The readers are subjected to a group of left wing columnists’ including Mike ‘fat tony’ Williams.

    This kind of story flies well under the radar..

    No wonder we have Rick Barker as a regional councilor.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Fuck, I can’t believe it; on Q+A just now, Cunliffe had the unmitigated gall to say that “the New Zealand public is getting sick of this kind of petty politics.” (!!!!!)

    I am speechless. What a contemptible hypocrite.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. trout (944 comments) says:

    Where did the money go? There could be an issue of money laundering here – the law in that regard is very wide.
    Or perhaps the notable quote from Derek Fox applies:
    ‘Koha (as in a $50,000 gift from the Kohanga Reo trust to a family member) is not taxable’.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Manolo (14,024 comments) says:

    Kim DotCom’s minion and legal eagle jumps to Labour’s defense. A potential coalition partner must be saved.
    https://twitter.com/GraemeEdgeler/status/480440174438932480

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Judith.

    The money donated at various dinners, tie auctions etc, were collected by the host of the event, and donated to National, where they were subsequently accounted for.

    There seems to be no corresponding return from the function where the wine was auctioned.

    Labour have directed the narrative that set the standard, and have fallen well short of that standard.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. MrTips (100 comments) says:

    Thoroughly agree with an independent commission on corruption but then you’re going to have run the gambit of checking Fletchers, Westpac and any other major NZ Corp as well………….

    Sucks to be a politician in NZ eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ slightlyrighty (2,478 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 9:48 am

    Rubbish – as was pointed out by Pete George, there were entries accounting for money donated via lawyers by undisclosed people, which was allowable at the time.

    A bottle of wine or a tie – whatever – both auctions run by a host and then the proceeds donated to the parties.

    Why is it okay for one party to do it, and the other not?

    Your hypocrisy is outstanding. You excuse the exact same behaviour from National, but criticise labour for doing it. The fact is the proceeds show up in both set of books – and neither record the people who ‘donated’ the money by purchasing seats or lots etc. You do not know, and cannot tell whether that money that shows in Labour’s books, was the money from Liu or not.

    The fact is, NONE of this should be happening. It is dishonest, it allows for preferential treatment, and there is even demonstration of that treatment being given by BOTH parties.

    Neither of them have anything to be proud of – and none of their supporters have anything to rave about. They are BOTH in the same boat, but just refuse to acknowledge it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. wiseowl (925 comments) says:

    Yes Adze.
    I choked on my porridge!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    About 12 months ago, I made a prediction that if Cunliffe could unite the Labour party behind him, the election would be his. Now I could be disingenuous and say that because he never really united the party, my prediction still holds. :) But the truth is I just overestimated him.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Matthew Hooton (131 comments) says:

    adze
    Well, I didn’t. This is going pretty much as I expected. When I used to say on radio etc that Shearer was their best bet for 2014, the left said I was being mischievous. But I wasn’t. A politician perceived as honest, with a bit of a bumbling style, aiming for the median voter? Or a smarmy dissembler heading off to the left? Pretty obvious which was the better bet. Shearer would be on his way to becoming prime minister in September if the unions and loony left hadn’t rolled him.

    PS. Of course, either Robertson or Jones would also be on the way to becoming prime minister. Only the particular decision made by the “membership” and the unions could have engineered a situation where Labour became likely to lose this election. John Key owes them all a beer.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. WineOh (630 comments) says:

    Liu must be rethinking whether to stay in NZ… how differently this would have run in China. Domestic violence charge? A few dollars in the right police inspector’s back pocket & the problem goes away. Need a consent for new commercial property development? A few hundred thousand to the right local government authority fixes that one. He must think the dollar amounts involved in these “scandals” to be pitifully small. How is it that these third tier hacks from overseas (eg- Kim Schmidt) become so influential in our local politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. KapitiCoast (114 comments) says:

    Mike Williams has said previously if there were a $100K donation, before Lui’s statement that he paid 100K for a bottle of wine at a labour party ‘fund raiser’, he would remember it…hmmm, so where did the 100K go to?…who pocketed it as it cannot be ‘secret’ donation Mike if its at a public fundraiser…why no documentation of it?

    Labour will be under investigation within days of Lui giving evidence showing his ‘donation’ Mike Williams will be sh#tting himself and Cunliffe will survive as leader (thank goodness as he is the gift for National that just keeps giving!)

    If any of you visit the TV3 political postings, they are getting feral and blaming it/anything on National/Key, would be humerous but for the fact they believe what they post!….Poem/Disabled Johnny/Bruce etc are total Labour sycophants.

    Reminds me of anything that happens in Middle East, it’s all Israels Fault….even an earthquake , Israel have an earthquake machine is preached to the cult followers….are NZ left voters (that post on The Standard, TV3 etc) so blinded by their ‘side’ that anything that befalls them is a right wing conspiracy or more specifically Key’s to blame!?…sad…sad…sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    WineOh (491 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 10:18 am
    Liu must be rethinking whether to stay in NZ…

    Liu shouldn’t be thinking anything other than what he is going to say to the Chinese officials when he gets off the plane after being extradited from this country. He has broken the laws of this land whilst living here – any immigrant that does the same should be immediately sent back from whence they came.

    Apart from that – he is also proved he thinks he can buy his way into favour with our politicians. How dare he think such a thing, doesn’t he know we are an outstanding democratic society that wouldn’t allow such things to happen?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Pete George (23,677 comments) says:

    Kim DotCom’s minion and legal eagle jumps to Labour’s defense. A potential coalition partner must be saved.

    No, Edgeler is just stating facts on electoral law…

    Moreover, neither the Privileges Committee or the House has jurisdiction over something that happened during a previous Parliament.

    As Andrew Geddis also said.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    The most remarkable thing about this is that corporal cunners learned absolutely nothing from the Glenn business. Then they shat all over Glenn and he dumped on them. What on earth did cunners expect Liu to as a consequence of the attacks on National? Could he not see that by implication they were also attacking Liu? It beggars believe that he is in fact that stupid. Or is it just that he is as feral as the rest of them – like a pissed off alley cat that will scratch and claw at anything in range?

    And as far as barker is concerned – what is it about these pinkos? They slag off wealth, but the minute there is the sniff of a dollar note they grovel and snivel all the way to the trough. Same with blobcon. Harawira – well of course, but the melons, curran and who can forget that deadbeat Bradbury? Does nothing, is nothing and got nothing. Wails away about the nasty capitalist but the first rat off the block to try and crawl up blobcons drainpipe.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Matthew Hooton (123 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 10:17 am

    I totally agree with you. I have always believed that Shearer would have grown with experience and been able to provide the sort of leadership that many New Zealander’s would support. Especially those that cannot assimilate their own moral stance with that of a Key lead government.

    My biggest criticism of Cunliffe has always been the way he instigated his takeover – citing the example of Jenny Shipley and where her tactics took her.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. David Garrett (7,518 comments) says:

    Matthew H (If you are still here): someone upthread may have covered this, but given the plethora of denials from all and sundry in Labour, and given this statement by Liu is described as “signed” (which is something well short of an affidavit), where is the actual evidence about this donation?

    I know Rick Barker has called for Liu to “come clean” about all donations he has made – which seems a little odd with what we now know – but can Labour not just keep repeating that they have no evidence of these donations to them?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Jack5 (5,144 comments) says:

    Ah, the benefits of multiculturalism.

    As well as providing ethnic-restaurant choice to Auckland’s babbling celebrity airheads, multiculturalism is breaking down walls around our politicians. Those walls were, well, so monoculturally Western.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Matthew,

    The thing is, I’m not sure anyone in the Labour caucus could match John Key. I think it was someone like Chris Trotter who said that the next Labour PM may not even yet be in parliament.
    I based my early opinion of Cunliffe on his ability to make compelling soundbites while he was the Finance spokesperson. But clearly that was the height of his powers; he’s otherwise been a shocker tactically and as a leader.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Jack5 (5,144 comments) says:

    Re Hooton (10.17) and Judith (10.27) on Shearer.

    I guess you are both right. But that bloody guitar and “Kumbaya”.

    Still Shearer is a really sincere guy for a politician. Too good to be believable, as though a century ago you had wandered into a used car yard where the salesman was Gandhi.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    Right now there is no evidence to back up the $100k for wine claim.

    Until I see a bank record I’m not buying it, it should be the easiest thing in the world to prove

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Judith: Don’t ever take your mobility scooter to the US, you may be required to drive on the right hand side of the road . . . for a socialist fool such as you it would be impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. David Garrett (7,518 comments) says:

    Read further back now…I see my point HAS already been made, including by Geddis…

    I actually agree with those who have said both parties have been behind the bike sheds playing dirty games with dodgy Chinese – and German – businessmen…The whole sordid business doesn’t reflect well on either major party…but the mud will stick to Cunliffe and not to Key simply because the latter is so popular for other reasons and the first so very unpoplular for a whole host of other reasons..

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ igm (1,239 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 10:39 am

    I’ve been to the USA, and I have no desire to return. My ‘mobility scooter’ would beat yours any day sunshine. Here is my answer to you … watch it in its entirety, it has many messages for you in it. Enjoy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Jack5 (5,144 comments) says:

    Given the mess, which parties will look squeaky clean in the coming election? the Greens? Colin Craig’s Conservatives? Possum Pete’s Petite Party-ette?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Dave Mann (1,248 comments) says:

    I quite like the Chinese and I think they are generally providing some much needed investment in this country.

    However, what is considered normal in China is far from acceptable here. There’s no doubt that if we want to preserve the transparency, honesty and relative lack of corruption in our political system we need this kind of open discussion in our media and blogs.

    Good on you, DPF and Bryce Edwards et al for continuing to examine and throw light on issues like this. We need these discussions. We also need some kind of anti-corruption commission as you have suggested.

    China will only become more influential, not less, in coming years and we need to draw a line in the sand right now if we are to remain an open society. I know there are successful Chinese here in NZ who appreciate the openness of our system, so it won’t do us any harm long-term if we enforce our own values in our own country.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    The Electoral Act is not an option for the pursuit of this issue – whatever it now is.

    The Crimes Act? Possibly, but that would likely require a complaint by Labour.

    But what some folks appear to have overlooked is another agency. The SFO has a somewhat unique ability to investigate any matter that its director considers to be of public interest. That consideration does NOT require any consent by other parties. The “power” has yet to be tested in Court, but it is there and labour should not believe it will lay dormant. It will though not be exercised prior to the General Election because it will be perceived as a “Government” attack on Labour. Post election however, watch out.

    The only court, the one that really matters, is public opinion. In my view, while I would very much like to believe otherwise, this issue does not resonate with the great unwashed. All the attempts to smear Key, English, Joyce, Collins et al came to nought because it was seen as a beltway issue. Sooner or later Cunliffe and the left might get that through their thick socialist heads. From National’s point of view it is a wonderful means of shooting in the foot every criticism that Cun*life/Labour makes. AND National will be able to justly claim it was self inflicted.

    Oh dear. What a pity. Never mind.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    So what do we now know about Labour and this Liu.

    Chris Carter and David Cunliffe wrote letters on his behalf to immigration officials, despite him not being a constituent of either MP
    Damien O’Connor granted him residency against official advice
    He gave a donation to a club Rick Barker was involved in, and spent $50,000 or so on entertaining Barker in China
    He donated $150,000 or so to Labour, yet they have never ever disclosed he was a donor

    Can you post the four associations with the National MPs again – so we can just, like, compare and contrast?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Yvette (2,844 comments) says:

    What has David Cunliffe done, that he claims John Banks should not have did?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. wiseowl (925 comments) says:

    1law4all Jack5

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Jack5 (5,144 comments) says:

    Dave Mann: I agree with your 10.53 post on holding tight to our political values.

    However, the Chinese investment is going disproportionately into residential and city-commercial property. There has been some investment in servicing the dairy industry, and a smart grab of the country’s biggest seed bank from a century of grassland research, but where are the new export industries that were going to come from multicultural investment? They are very few.

    Have our incentives to business immigrants attracted people ready to move into relaxed lifestyles rather than driving entrepreneurs? If you have an overwhelming drive to make a billion dollars, the Chinese economy, so far bubbling, is a more attractive environment than Auckland.

    It’s wrong and unfair to blame only Chinese business immigrants for our eroding standards. European New Zealanders were surely involved in dairy and kiwifruit scandals involving NZ and China, and politicians and parties that accept bribes are as culpable as the people who offer them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Reid (16,626 comments) says:

    Given the mess, which parties will look squeaky clean in the coming election?

    My read at present Jack is that National isn’t tainted amongst the floaters but Liarbore has been.

    The swift decapitation of the Williamson storm in a teacup put paid also to the Oravida complete bollocks and now the accusers have nothing to stand on given their ability to pretend they have any integrity at all has been totally destroyed.

    I think National strategists are going to campaign firstly about not putting it all at risk by electing complete economic mentals and secondly about trust, which given Key’s standings in the trust poll last week is a bit risky, but nevertheless I think that’s what they’ll do to deal with both the Liarbore and the Interweb/Mana coalition.

    It’s a shame if they do that because in my view theiur best strategy would be simply to run on their record and maintain complete silence on the opposition treating them as if they didn’t even exist. But let’s see.

    I think what this saga is showing is that while Cunliffe may have approximately the same amount of ethical integrity as Hulun did, he has none of her rat-cunning and not much of her ruthlessness, either. If Hulun was in charge of this, by this time on Sunday, the Police would have already announced a prosecution investigation of Barker and she would have had an army of spin doctors working with the NIWA Supercomputer on how precisely to pretend that Liarbore really did declare it all along.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Razork (375 comments) says:

    Robert Reid from the first union isn’t just from another planet, based on his performance on Q&A he must surely come from a whole new solar system…..

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. fernglas (167 comments) says:

    As Andrew Geddis points out, there is nothing the Police can do in respect of a failure to declare the donation. Too late. Some, e.g. Bryce Edwards, seem to have been saying that if we accept that Liu made the donation and it doesn’t appear in Labour’s records then there may well have been theft of the amount. That is a Police matter. To those who say that a statement by Liu is not evidence, and I include Cunliffe in that, it in fact is, albeit apparently unsworn, and it seems to be corroborated by the photo of his wife holding a bottle of wine in the presence of a cheerfully glowing Rick Barker. Cunliffe says the burden of proof is on Liu. This is not a criminal charge; it is a matter of raising a sufficient prima facie case to justify an investigation. Liu seems to have discharged that to a point where Labour needs to say not just that they can find no record, but there is no record and either Liu is lying or someone from within Labour nicked it. In that case they should then complain to the Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. OneTrack (3,213 comments) says:

    Jack5 – “Still Shearer is a really sincere guy for a politician. Too good to be believable, as though a century ago you had wandered into a used car yard where the salesman was Gandhi.”

    Complete with Shearer’s million dollar bank account in the tax-free Cayman Islands? Its ok when the left does it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. David Garrett (7,518 comments) says:

    OneTrack: Was it ever established Shearer had a mill in the Caymans? More than 50K in an account in New York, but I never heard of the other one…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ross411 (860 comments) says:

    itstricky (1,438 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 10:55 am
    Can you post the four associations with the National MPs again – so we can just, like, compare and contrast?

    If they were worth posting, you’d make the effort to do it yourself. Instead, you just allude something and require someone else do the work to prove your vague allusions wrong.

    Man up and produce something of substance.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Jack5 (5,144 comments) says:

    OneTrack (11.10): are you saying it’s wrong to invest where tax is low? There is a world of difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

    My estimation of Shearer goes up on learning he had saved a million and had invested it securely and smartly.

    And Gandhi wasn’t without flaws either. Ask India’s Untouchables, and when he was in South Africa, he apparently didn’t have much time for black Africans (see link below).

    In a car sales yard, Gandhi would have stood out as a paragon of honesty. Still you probably wouldn’t have bought the car if you had asked him about the radiator, and was told you could piss in it, and and still drain it and drink it if you got stuck in a desert.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/17/southafrica.india

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    There better be a quick investigation because if Liu wrote out a personal cheque for $100k he could show that the money came out of his account but not which account it went into if it was over 7 years ago as the bank destroy their records after 7 years.

    This is a point of contention in my civil case so I know this to be the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross411 (860 comments) says:

    So a rich man who wasn’t a constituent of NZ got a favour from Cunliffe, then in return repaid the favour later on. Dotcom could learn something from Liu. He needed to find a Labour politician, wave his money around and to offer them the money for after they did the dirty on his behalf.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ross411 (176 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 11:18 am

    He was a business man, from a country where corruption wins favour, who is astute enough, and learned from the experience of this own country, to know that if he changed his allegiance depending on which party was in government at the time, he would gain the most benefit. Therefore he has learned early in his life that using his money where he could gain the most efficiency is best. Which worked, because he is still here, and even had one of them try to influence his criminal charge.

    Perhaps Liu learned from Dotcom – afterall, Dotcom’s first attempt was to an ACT M.P – one of National’s allies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird (4,539 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Believe me Chuck, the banks do not destroy their records after 7 years. There is a legal requirement for them to keep their records for seven years, but they still have their records a lot longer than that. Especially with new technology. They just choose not to divulge that information after that period of time, especially when it is in their favour. But you try getting a loan from a bank that you’ve had a bad record with e.g. fifteen years ago, and you can bet they can tell you all about those transactions and the necessary details.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. kiwi in america (2,508 comments) says:

    Cunliffe has been hoist by his own petard… to quote John Campbell of all people. National laid a trap for him, they bided their time with great discipline and he fell right in it. Mike Williams got a sniff of it and he started hedging his comments last week. Key would’ve known (likely via Nats who know Liu) the size of the donations and gave a little tickle from New York knowing sooner or later the dollar amount would surface. Cunliffe stayed glued on his high horse and still thinks this is petty politics that will blow over. When he calls out Williamson for his phone call to the police re Liu’s assault charges its high minded speaking truth to power and exposing corruption but when Labour takes even more money from the same man, its a smear campaign. The man needs to harden up – politics is a full contact sport and he’s been monstered behind his own goal line and coughed up the ball.

    Judith – explaining is losing. When Brian Edwards says Labour’s in trouble – they are in trouble. Even if the Privileges Committee or the Police can do nothing about the $150k donations, National can ask Cunliffe at every opportunity where the money went – along with who donated to his secret trust. They were toast before this revelation – now they’re burnt toast!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. markm (114 comments) says:

    Judith
    You are obviously an amazing gymnast judging by the contorted positions you can hold at the same timing as holding your nose , crossing your fingers and saying hail Mary.

    It would be a lot easier if you just accepted the fact that your beloved left wing are a bunch of non achieving, losers , whose one collective success has been a previous ability to avoid all rules and laws that they expect others to follow.

    When 3 out of 4 New Zealanders are smart enough to reject Labour, its time you accepted reality and did the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    “Believe me Chuck, the banks do not destroy their records after 7 years.”

    How much do you want to bet Judith? I wrote out a cheque for $115k on 9 June 2002. The day after the money came out of my account. The idiot I am having this legal argument is trying to claim now he did not get the money but he did actually get the money. He did not make this ridiculous counterclaim until early 2012. The bank has informed me they destroy records after 7 years so there is no why they can say for certain where the cheque went.

    I know what I am taking about. As usual you do not.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Viking2 (11,547 comments) says:

    Judith (6,725 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 9:03 am

    @ stigie (812 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 8:50 am

    Why is Penny my friend? I’ve never met her, nor corresponded with her other than commenting to her on here.

    I find people who think someone they communicate with via blogs, or other similar internet sites, as ‘friends’ to be extremely sad examples of human existence. I actually know what all my friends look like in person.

    Just because I may agree with someone on various issues, and I may respect their stance, it doesn’t make them my ‘friend’.

    I feel for you if that is your only standard of friendship.
    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16
    =================

    Judith, wise up Its the Facebook generation thing. All the world is my friend. Like me please.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Viking2 (11,547 comments) says:

    That he spent $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China in 2007; and

    Some fucking cruise. or was it the booze, women or gambling that got paid for. OR all three? :lol: :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    Cunners has been the best thing that the Liars party has ever done.

    He’s so stupid he’s brought all the rorts out in the open that Helen and Mickey were smart enough to cover up! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    … such is the yingtze and yangtze of politics …

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. OneTrack (3,213 comments) says:

    Jack5 – “are you saying it’s wrong to invest where tax is low? There is a world of difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.”

    I agree. But that’s not the leftie narrative, is it? We get lambasted by the left about big business evading tax using offshore bank accounts and secret trusts, etc. Until, suddenly, we find they are also using offshore bank accounts and secret trusts. It is the hypocrisy that burns my gears.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. s.russell (1,645 comments) says:

    Judith,
    I agree in part with what you say: that it would be good for the full details of ALL Liu’s donations to be exposed and correlated with declarations by both parties (whether laundered or not) so we can see the whole truth. THEN we might be able to look into the question of whether any inappropriate favours were delivered in response. I also agree that there is an issue about the standards of proof required. None of that absolves Labour from the charge of hypocrisy, or the charge of stupidity. The charge of actual corruption by Labour is unresolved, and yes (though the whiff is fainter) we need to know a bit more about National’s actions too.

    But I have another, quite different, criticism of what you say:

    He has broken the laws of this land whilst living here – any immigrant that does the same should be immediately sent back from whence they came.

    Unless it was obtained fraudulently then it seems to me that giving someone citizenship is irrevocable. If Liu is now a citizen then any crime he might commit subsequently is ours to deal with internally. We cannot revoke citizenship, any more than you can revoke adoption because a child misbehaves.

    I realise this won’t be a popular viewpoint, but I invite critics to think through the full implications of the idea that citizenship is something that can be taken away from people you do not like.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    It must be frustrating for you Judith that despite your many forays to KB, folk just aren’t getting your message?

    If it’s any consolation, I think you’re wonderful! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. OneTrack (3,213 comments) says:

    David Garrett – “Was it ever established Shearer had a mill in the Caymans? More than 50K in an account in New York, ”

    I was under the impression the account was in the Cayman’s but you could be right. Even so, it is still an off -shore account, not KiwiBank.

    And $1 million is more than 50K :-). If it was a little bit more than 50k he would have simply released the actual value to quickly close down the story at the time. He didn’t, which implied it was a lot more.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. OneTrack (3,213 comments) says:

    “Perhaps Liu learned from Dotcom – afterall, Dotcom’s first attempt was to an ACT M.P – one of National’s allies.”

    I am sure he did learn from DotCom – that ACT MP John Banks couldn’t be bought, so another path had to be tried.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. David Garrett (7,518 comments) says:

    OneTrack: yes, I agree it was probably considerably more than USD50K….but a bank account in New York is a very different thing from having one in the Caymans…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. cha (4,076 comments) says:

    … such is the yingtze and yangtze of politics …

    And now there’s tea all over the shop!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. G152 (384 comments) says:

    They don’t call him Goneliffe for nothing..
    Its the denial that is so blatant

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Sofia (862 comments) says:

    As stigie asks – Where is Penny?

    A whole thread on possibly one of the more corrupt situations in New Zealand
    and no Penny drops in so far
    Now, could have been good – going on for years, Penny, it’s what you have been demanding –

    “This is scandalous from the public’s perspective. There has to be some sort of official investigation, whether it’s a police one or a parliamentary one,” said political commentator Bryce Edwards. “There must be some sort of official investigation, whether it’s a police or parliamentary.”

    • This is why I believe we should have an Independent Commission against Corruption – a body which can investigate issues like that – even if there are no prosecutions – we need to have someone with the ability to find out what happened
    – David Farrar

    • An Independent Commission Against Corruption would be useful I think.
    – Cameron Slater

    But why no Penny –

    First John Banks – then John Key? That’s my next little project – as I stand in Helensville against NZs first U$A Prime Minister – ex Wall St banker John Key.

    But what hasn’t Labour done that John Banks did?
    Couldn’t be perhaps the current corruption diminishes Labour and may enhance the image of National and Prime Minister John Key. That would be a bugger, Penny.
    So some corruption is optional and can be ignored by the Anti-Corruption Watchdog.
    Isn’t that maybe a little corrupt?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    Sofia

    It just shows that you can’t be a campaigner against corruption and be partisan. Penny is showing herself to be an apologist for corruption and the way she does that is exactly the same as Winston. It’s different when it’s her team.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. burt (8,301 comments) says:

    So we all know where this failure to declare donations ends – move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    A whole thread on possibly one of the more corrupt situations in New Zealand
    and no Penny drops in so far
    Now, could have been good – going on for years, Penny, it’s what you have been demanding

    Now now Sofia, Penny is just one person with her own priorities (they just happen to be mostly right wing targets). Her priority now is to challenge Key’s objectives via the Epsom electorate – to keep “pressure on corruption”, despite actual corruption remaining unchecked. That stuff will have to wait until after the election, when it can be quietly forgotten.

    If you want any left wing groups to be held accountable, well, you’ll just have to “get off your backside”, in her words.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Sofia (862 comments) says:

    I am sorry. I know Penny is between a hard place and an even harder place
    But after months, if not years of –
    Good moaning Kiwiblogger toothless goldfish, have you seen this?
    then dropping some meaningless cuckoo magpie egg, krapping in the nest
    and pissing off with her over-inflated ego mental malaise to do it someplace else.

    I mean, has she yet uttered a word about how fucking inept the Auckland City Council is at collecting rates – six years inept. They are apparently hopeless at selling houses too when they should.

    Unless as “… she says she paid off her 24-year mortgage in nine years and rents rooms to flatmates for income.” … that may be a legal hang up: the tenants.

    And they must be on a good deal – whatever they are paying couldn’t include anything for a share of rates … could it ? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Fentex (1,014 comments) says:

    Labour failed to declare $150,000 from Liu

    They weren’t required to record or report the wine. Legislation did not require reporting over-priced purchases as donations at the time. And people can only conflate current law with a then need to do so because Labour passed such a law, so it’s quite clear they followed the rules that governed them but thinking they needed improving did so.

    The other odd $50,000 is something again – it was a gift that Rick Barker should have reported. He certainly looks like a corrupt little sod and it presents an argument that corrupt practices shouldn’t be so easily allowed to lapse into unprosecutable history by all too brief a limitation or sole consideration as contempt of parliament by sitting members.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    But what hasn’t Labour done that John Banks did?

    In order for it to be a crime you have to first provide the evidence – that is solid evidence, not just a verbal statement, that proves the money existed and was handled over. In the Banks case, this was done. It has not been done in the Labour case.

    Secondly you have to establish who was responsible, and that they didn’t declare it. You don’t know who was responsible, and you do not know that it wasn’t declared. As Pete George pointed out, in the same year Labour did declare donations via lawyers from undisclosed recipients (which was legal at the time). I may be that the sum being argued was declared (if it exists, and was part of the same sort of schemes National runs, where they get someone to hold the functions and then ‘donate’ the moneys – thus not having to declare who the original donors were.

    Before you can even remotely compare this to Banks, you have to first prove a transaction, and then provide a name. You’ can’t do either. In short you are just wishfully thinking, and warbling about nothing you can substantiate at this stage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ OneTrack (2,398 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    So you don’t actually know, but because you think there was an implication, you decided to add a figure to it?

    The fact that Shearer was living and working in the USA at the time the money was received, it was perfectly acceptable for him to have a bank account overseas.

    Talk about desperate to make a little story into a big one!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ s.russell (1,524 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    I didn’t know he’d been given citizenship, I thought it was just residency?

    Whatever has happened, in this case and others, we need a full investigation into the matter and we need to prevent such people from being able to influence our politicians – who despite evidence to the contrary, are human, and prone to error.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. smttc (761 comments) says:

    I wish people would stop asking for evidence of the payment and what happened to the money.

    We know what happened – the money went into the Labour Party’s bank account.

    When the LP say they have no record of a donation of $100,000 from Liu, they mean it. Because the overvalued price Liu paid for the bottle of wine was not classified as a donation in 2007.

    The LP got the money alright. They are just avoiding being honest about it by saying there is no record of a donation.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Johnboy (16,994 comments) says:

    However Judith if like Cunners you have been warbling on about corruption, crony capitalism, dodgy donations etc. this makes you look like a complete prat. That is on top of the fact that you look a lot like a fucking turtle to start with.

    Mutant Vacant Ginga Turtle springs to mind! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Chuck Bird (4,541 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 11:41 am

    No Chuck, you believe the Bank doesn’t know – what I’m saying is they do know, but they don’t and won’t tell, nor will they provide such evidence past the lawful date that they are required to, for the simple reason that if they did that, they would be inundated with requests and because they might lose customers etc.

    They simply say the do not have the records, and they may not have the hard copy of the cheque, but they will have a record on their system – which they will access for their own advantage if they need to. How’s ya hacking skills.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Johnboy (14,403 comments) says:
    June 22nd, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    I agree Cunliffe looks like turtle, however, as your only experience of me is my reading and typing on here, I’d like to know what species of turtle is able to read and type?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    When 3 out of 4 New Zealanders are smart enough to reject Labour, its time you accepted reality and did the same.

    Don’t you mean 3 out of 4 NZers that were polled. I happen to know that my grandchildren, who are New Zealanders do not have an opinion about Cunliffe or Labour, at all. And I’m very sure there are many such children etc, who feel the same way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Much well-deserved criticism of Labour over this, I see.

    But where are those who lambast “the fat kraut” (and other epithets) for his attempts to buy influence in the NZ political process? Is the “forgetful” Mr Liu – whom officials advised O’Connor shouldn’t be allowed in the country – any more desirable than Dotcom?

    Is paying ridiculous amounts for bottles of wine and paintings and doling out wads of cash in a blatant attempt to curry favour with a major party which has (or perhaps had) a chance of becoming government, somehow benign compared to putting money into a vanity party in an attempt to prop up that same major party and help it form a government?

    I think not. So why, then, are the character and motives of Kim Dotcom minutely examined, whereas that of Dong Liu go unremarked?

    Could it be that an atmosphere has been created in which justified criticism of immigrants of Caucasian background is fair comment, but that of Asian immigrants is “xenophobic”?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Chuck Bird (4,923 comments) says:

    Judith, If anyone needs prove that you do not know what you are talking about this should help. You as wrong on this as about David Bain.

    Hi Lianne

    Thank you very much for that information. If the other party and his lawyer persist in their ridiculous demand that the onus is on me to prove that the other party actually cashed the cheque I gave him the fact that it is the banks policy to destroy cheques after seven years may be assistance. Thank you again.

    Kind regards
    Chuck Bird

    On 12/06/2013 10:39, Lianne_T*******@bnz.co.nz wrote:
    > Dear Mr Bird,
    >
    > Thank you for your email, I had already received a copy of these statements from your initial communication (via the Bank’s Legal team).
    >
    > As outlined to you, in order to determine whether your request was viable, (had permission been forthcoming from Mr S**** ) I had already done a search to determine if any records were available for 2002 and the answer was:
    > ZXBASH * Statement on this date is no longer available to order
    >
    > Term deposits are not statemented at BNZ as transaction accounts are. Customers, when they open a term deposit, or top it up, receive a Term deposit certificate. This does not state or show where the funds were debited from. Funds for customers’ term deposits are drawn from the transaction or savings account of a customer, where the funds need to be deposited in the first instance for any cheque clearance. It is not possible to bank a cheque directly into a BNZ term deposit account.
    >
    > The statements you attached for June and July 2002 were ordered by a staff member at Remuera BNZ on 6 December 2011 and are no longer available as the file has been destroyed. As you will see from the fax date, they were faxed in February 2012 more than a year ago.
    >
    > When statements are ordered for customers, or under the customer’s authority, the copies retrieved (even if faxed) are posted to the parties concerned or collected from the Branch. If the paper copies are not sent or collected, the usual practice is to have them disposed of securely.
    >
    > You may find that the plaintiff has requested or retained copies of statements that the Bank no longer holds, which is why these documents have been presented. You would therefore need to approach the plaintiff for this information.
    >
    > In terms of our usual policy, the Bank of New Zealand has a document destruction schedule in place. The Bank aims to comply with the Privacy Act 1993 which contains principles in regard to personal information. Principle nine states “An Agency that holds personal information shall not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used.” The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 contains a clause on the retention of documents by banks. This provides for Banks to destroy documents after a minimum retention period of 7 years. Other applicable legislation is the Tax Administration Act 1994 (keeping of business and other records) and the Companies Act 1993. BNZ has a practice of retaining statements for a minimum of 7 years from the end of the fiscal year in which a transaction occurred. After this we arrange for the record to be destroyed in a secure manner. This applies to any digital or microfiche records as well as to physical items.
    >
    > I regret the Bank will not be able to assist you directly with your request, as 1) the Bank does not hold a waiver for release of any information to you from Mr S**** 2) as advised to you (and to Mr S***** on the correspondence provided), the Bank is unlikely to be able to retrieve any further information from 2002 regarding transactions on any of our customers accounts.
    >
    > Yours sincerely,
    >
    >
    > Lianne

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. twofish (98 comments) says:

    Rex, without saying one is right or the other wrong, it could be Dong Liu is trained at home to act more that business can work that way.
    Just as a Somali I was told of, laughed at New Zealand Police when arrested for carrying a knife.
    “Why do you see this as a the big joke?” the Police had asked
    “Because you are just talking at me. Back home they would have stuck an AK-47 in my face”
    He was struggling to see how New Zealand life worked.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Manolo (14,024 comments) says:

    Judith’s descent from obsessed Bainite to pathetic Labourite is utter laughable. Some people deserve it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @twofish

    Oh, please. I appreciate your sentiment is genuine but to paint Liu as some sort of babe in the woods, unaware that NZ has different standards on corruption doesn’t really hold up. To have made the kind of money he has he’s no fool, so do you really think he wouldn’t have enquired of Chinese contacts here before “investing” so heavily in corrupting our politics.

    Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I would imagine the Somali you cite would have been charged and, depending on his immigration status, deported. The same should occur in relation to Liu (and Dotcom… not because he’s annoyed some other millionaires but because he attempted to corrupt a public official in John Banks).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. twofish (98 comments) says:

    Rex, you are likely right
    It’s just a vague perception – Germany corrupt rank 12, China 80, New Zealand 1 until last week :-)
    The Somali was warned and is still here

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Rex, I for one know very little of Liu’s motivations, given that he has only spoken out for the first time this week. But I haven’t seen any evidence of a fear of being labeled xenophobic, for that to be credibly raised as the reason for the supposed double standard you describe. If we knew Liu was or is trying to influence NZ politics in a similar way to Dotcom I would be interested, especially if it was being done in a covert way; but we can only usefully comment on what we can either know or infer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @twofish

    The Somali was warned and is still here

    What did the courts think he was carrying a knife for? A spot of manicuring during idle moments on the bus?

    I suspect the real reason he was laughing – as are Dotcom and Liu – is because they all know that if a NZer behaved the way they do in their respective countries they’d be on a freighter back home, possibly after a spell in a very unsanitary prison.

    Is NZ ever going to tire of being laughed at by those immigrants who know our tolerance for their bad character is almost endless, lest we’re called… oh, the horror… racist.

    And meanwhile, we put decent, hard working people who want to come here but can’t buy their way in, or claim refuge from the results of their willing participation in internecine warfare, at the back of the queue and present them with almost impossible demands.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    adze says:

    If we knew Liu was or is trying to influence NZ politics in a similar way to Dotcom I would be interested, especially if it was being done in a covert way; but we can only usefully comment on what we can either know or infer

    Mr Liu repeatedly paid vastly inflated prices for commonly available items like bottles of wine.

    I think we’re safe in inferring one of two possible reasons. Either he is corrupt, and was hoping to corrupt the politicians he bought; or he was star struck by Rick Barker and hoping to impress him. For Mr Liu’s sake, I really hope it wasn’t the latter, or the poor fellow needs therapy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    Mr Liu repeatedly paid vastly inflated prices for commonly available items like bottles of wine. I think we’re safe in inferring one of two possible reasons. Either he is corrupt, and was hoping to corrupt the politicians he bought;

    Isn’t this just an objection to political donations in general? Because unless actual favours were exchanged for these sums of money, that’s what they were, regardless of how much benefit Liu expected in return. You could argue that he received residence and (later) citizenship on the back of his donations, and that is a reasonable criticism if you assume that the donations were promised before he made them (after getting residence/citizenship); but I recall both of those decisions being controversial at the time. And given that there is an entire category of immigrant visa for wealthy people, it’s not that unusual.

    Do you support taxpayer funded political parties instead?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Viking2 (11,547 comments) says:

    Stephen Franks: Labour-Liu legal loophole?
    Labels: Political donations, Stephen Franks

    Since the link between Donghua Liu and David Cunliffe surfaced early this week there has been widespread speculation that Labour breached the law in failing to declare two campaign donations made by Mr Liu in 2007.

    http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/06/stephen-franks-labour-liu-legal-loophole.html

    Though Labour maintains it has no records, the Herald has reported that in 2007 Mr Liu contributed $15,000 for a book signed by Helen Clark, and an unknown amount of money for a bottle of wine.

    Under the current law, a candidate donation can include:

    “where goods or services are provided by a candidate under a contract or arrangement at a value that is more than their reasonable market value, the amount of the difference between that value and the reasonable market value of those goods or services.”

    Corresponding terms govern party donations. Assuming the second donation was for more than $1500, they would capture both of Mr Liu’s transactions. The candidate or responsible party agent who knowingly failed to report them could face up to two years imprisonment (section 207I of the Electoral Act 1993).

    But until 19 December 2007 the law governing donations was different. Until then the Electoral Act 1993 defined ‘donation’ to include goods or services provided to the party at an undervalue, but did not expressly capture a sale at an overvalue.

    This loophole was partly closed by the Electoral Finance Act 2007 but untl then it was arguably legal not to report the alleged Liu donations if they were provided by way of auction price.

    The fact that the law was changed to capture the second transaction increases the strength of the case that parliament realised there was a legal loophole under the old provision.

    There is another way to analyse the transaction under pre-2007 law:

    The donation of the item (e.g. the wine bottle) to the party;
    The auction sale where the price is immaterial to its characterisation as a purchase, not a donation.

    On this view Mr Liu would not have donated to the Labour party at all. The donor would be the person who provided the item. In other words was the mistake not reporting the gift as coming from the original donor with a ‘reasonable market value’ close to the auction price?

    Though attractive in terms of spreading the worry net, in my view this analysis is not correct, even if it was not irrelevant because of lapse of time for prosecution. There are too may indeterminables for it to appeal to a court applying the criminal standard of proof.

    Of course evading illegality with a technical device does not diminish the disgrace that has rightly come to Labour for its hypocrisy in hounding Maurice Williamson, and before that Judith Collins, and even more so John Banks. Their condemnation of John Banks is particularly disgusting in the light of the Liu revelations, because John’s refusal to intervene for Kim Dotcom showed that he was not corrupted by the undisclosed donation.

    We lack reason for such confidence about the effect on Labour of the early Liu donations, given Mr Liu’s subsequent dealings with government, the circumstances of Shane Jones’ decision on another businessman, and Labour’s corrupt use of Parliamentary funding as it sought to nobble others with the Electoral Finance Act 2007.

    Thanks Michael Moughan for careful study of the superseded law.

    Stephen Franks is a principal of Wellington law firm Franks & Ogilvie and a former MP. He blogs at http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @adze

    No, I don’t support public funding of political parties. But I do support strict donations laws, including:

    A cap on how much any one person, or associated entities, or any company can donate to a party (and any and all candidates standing under that party’s banner. We could debate the amount… I’d suggest $25,000 per year. Enough to make a decent contribution to the party but hopefully not enough to convince a politician to risk his or her career over it.

    Contributions allowed only from NZ citizens or anyone else who’ll be entitled to vote at the next election, and from companies with a registered office in NZ (to help ensure accountability for any breaches).

    A lobbyists register, and an obligation upon Ministers and MPs to publish details of meetings with lobbyists online. And rules around disclosing other meetings, which protect the privacy of people but achieve as much transparency as possible.

    Real, enforceable penalties for breaches of electoral law… prison unless there’s an exceptionally good reason why not. People died for our democracy… it’s worth more than money, cars, jewellery or any of the stuff people currently go to jail for stealing.

    And deregistration an option for parties found to have calculatedly subverted our democracy.

    An Independent Commission Against Corruption to enforce these laws, with investigative and prosecutorial powers.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Intriguing stuff apparently. Assuming Liu claims are true, why does he revealed them now – years after the event and a long time since he was either gifted ‘favour’s or was not. Many comment about how this is a Chinese cultural thing, but how is that it seems that many of our politicians apparently so naively accept them. Peter Dunne wrote something about this earlier in the week, in which he described what he did in immigration matters, including that he wrote the letters himself to ensure he would remember them – so what is it with the others – assuming again of course that Liu is being truthful. Furthermore, Liu has a reputation for dropping officials in it – something known to our own politicians. On the face of it he’s a very dangerous person to place confidence in. There is a sense here that Liu continues to manipulate – if that’s the case, I can imagine why he thinks his alleged ‘gifts’ are worthwhile. At the moment he’s making DC look like a novice but the worry is about those that either naively or deliberately have strayed into his web.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. adze (2,129 comments) says:

    “No, I don’t support public funding of political parties. But I do support strict donations laws,”

    Fair enough. The subversion clause might possibly be problematic, but I don’t have an issue in principle with your other suggestions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. Scott1 (572 comments) says:

    “That may be correct for Labour, but I’m certain that is not current practice for National. Anyone who donates over the disclosure limit is disclosed.”

    Nitpicking a bit – but I presume you mean that it was the case until long after this event occurred, but isn’t now.

    I mean for example back in 2010 when Pansy Wong was getting donations from Liu or whoever else.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    There’s some evidence that Liu got himself in a financial mire in NZ, perhaps that would explain why the ‘sum’ of his donations apparently falls when comparing the claims as to what he gave Labour v National. If that’s the case the wonder is how he survives without a benefactor of some sort, clearly that’s the way he worked in China ‘giving up’ an official of the Government whom he had entrapped in a manner that allowed the official’s imprisonment by a regime that is very protective of itself and not shy to discard those in disfavour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    It appears Liu might be a couple of chopsticks short of a chow mein. Now I see he has put on twitter that Clarke also signed a painting for him. I can’t wait to see that one. Next week I believe he is going to tell us how she forced him to speed whilst he was driving her to the bank for yet another transaction that can’t be traced.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. itstricky (1,880 comments) says:

    If they were worth posting, you’d make the effort to do it yourself. Instead, you just allude something and require someone else do the work to prove your vague allusions wrong.

    Man up and produce something of substance.

    rossity411 – My entire point was that DPF has “published” only the feats of the Labour MPs, not the National ones. I wonder why? I also wonder why you didn’t get that. Or maybe I don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote