The Herald reports:

A High Court judge has ruled that a book written by a New Zealand Heraldjournalist about internet tycoon Kim Dotcom is not “news activity” and does not get special legal protections.

The book’s author and media commentators fear the ruling could have a “chilling effect” on New Zealand journalism if reporters were unable to protect their sources.

Click here to read the ruling by Justice Helen Winkelmann.

Justice Helen Winkelmann handed down her ruling on Monday, stating that material gathered by Herald senior journalist David Fisher to write The Secret Life of Kim Dotcom: Spies, Lies and the War for the Internet can be accessed by New Zealand Police and the GCSB in their case against Dotcom.

I can’t say I’m surprised by this ruling. Otherwise it would have given some authors a special status that other authors do not have.

Dotcom’s lawyers argued that the book was based on material gathered in the newsmaking process and was therefore an exception under the Privacy Act.

However, Justice Winkelmann found books were not within the definition of news activity by a news medium acknowledged under the Privacy Act.

“…the writing and publication of a book cannot, at least in this instance, be construed as news activity,” the ruling said.

News activity was preparing and publishing articles.

“Investigative journalism takes its form in long, detailed articles, which are covered by the Act’s definition. Books, however, are not.”

I think there is a difference between journalism and writing a book. A journalist is generally working for a news source, and they don’t get paid based on the sales of the news medium. But an author publishes a book for profit, and that is the primary motivation of books – profit, not journalism. Nothing wrong with that, I say.

Fisher said the ruling could compromise journalism in New Zealand if sources believed their interviews could be obtained through the courts.

“I think the ruling has the potential to undermine the public’s confidence in a free press,” he said. “The impact of the ruling has a potential chilling effect on anyone who wants to deal with a journalist who is writing a book.

I would never assume that telling things to someone writing a book has the same journalistic protection as talking to someone writing for a newspaper etc.

The Herald editorial says:

Dr Boston’s mistake was to suggest that the poorest New Zealand children were now no better off than some children in the slums of India. This statement, he said, was based on observations made when he spent a month late last year in Delhi where his wife worked as a volunteer doctor.

“India has about half of the world’s poorest children, but there are children in New Zealand living in circumstances that are not that much different from those in the slums of Delhi,” he said. “They are in houses that don’t have heating, in caravans that don’t have running water, and in families that simply don’t have enough food of the right kind every day.”

It is undeniable that some New Zealand children are living in the circumstances outlined by Dr Boston. But, equally, it is drawing the longest of bows to equate their plight to that of the many, many children living in the sort of slums associated with India. Child mortality statistics from agencies like the World Bank underline this.

Then there is the matter of the social welfare net in New Zealand. Dr Boston talks of a continuum in which some New Zealand children overlap with the circumstances of children in developing countries, but few will be convinced that the comparison he is making is valid.

Here’s what taxpayers currently fund to help families with children:

• $1.15 billion in accommodation assistance
• $182 million in childcare assistance
• $260 million in hardship support
• $1.25 billion for the DPB
• $16.9 million for out of school care
• $267 million in child support
• $1.93 billion in family support
• $494 million for in work tax credits
• $176 million for paid parental leave
• $32 million for parental and family tax credits
• $1.58 billion in early childhood education subsidies

We have an extremely generous welfare state.

It would be a shame if the comparison with the slums of India undermined the book’s impact. But this, unfortunately, is not an isolated example of attempted emotional manipulation by child poverty campaigners. They have also not done their cause any good by insisting that as many as one in four New Zealand children live in poverty. Such statements devalue their case and cast them as extremists. The children they aim to help would gain more from advocacy that is as sober as it is sound.

Comparisons to India help no-one, especially the authors.

The Herald reports:

Lawmakers in Luxembourg, whose prime minister is openly gay, has overwhelmingly approved changes in the small European nation’s legislation governing marriage that will allow people of the same sex to wed and to adopt children.

Sort of amusing that they have a gay PM before they have gay marriage. A country with a PM who couldn’t get married (well not to someone he is attracted to).

But that isn’t what I found most interesting:

Under the reform, Luxembourg’s legislators also fixed the legal age for marriage at 18 and dropped existing legal requirements for a pre-wedding medical exam, as well as the 300-day waiting period that had been imposed on widows or widowers before they could remarry. 

They required a pre-wedding medical exam!! And had a waiting period for widows!

Other strange laws they had:

• Girls could marry at 16 but boys only at 18
• Only civil marriages are recognised
• The blood tests must be within 2 months of the marriage

The Herald reports:

A law change aimed at improving the protection of children at risk of abuse or neglect, including stronger vetting of adults who work with children, has passed into law with broad support in Parliament.

The Vulnerable Children Bill passed its final stage by 105 – 10 votes in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon after only the Green Party and Mana Party’s Hone Harawira voted against it.

They voted against???

The bill is the centrepiece of the Government’s ‘Children’s Action Plan’ – developed after Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s White Paper on Vulnerable Children.

Its measures include changes to the law so that abusive or neglectful parents will have to prove they are safe if they wish to keep any further children they have. In the past, social agencies have had to to prove they were not fit parents to take a child from them.

It also introduces greater screening of those who work with children for government and community agencies, and ban those with serious convictions from working closely with children.

They voted against this? Against screening of those who work with children, against banning convicted offenders working with children?

Green Party MP Jan Logie said Ms Bennett had failed to deal to the main problem of child poverty.

Some on the left think that the solution to every single issue is to tax hard working New Zealanders more, to give to those on welfare. That is their solution to everything. So sad.

One of the most ubiquitous arachnids we have in NZ are pseudoscorpions (we have a lot of species).  Despite their wide distribution, most people will never see one.  The reason is two fold.  First, they’re very small. Most have a body-length less than 2mm.  The second is they’re quite cryptic.  While they’re adept predators they also dislike being in the light.  You can find them in leaf litter, bird’s nests, under rocks, sometimes even on native birds (where they hunt parasites).  There are also some species that are phoresic.  They hitch a ride on another arthropod for dispersal.

This is where I spotted this adult female.  She was hanging on to the leg of a house fly.  The species is Thallosocherens tairensis and is one of out most widely seen.  Even so, its still very very small.

To take this shot I needed a microscope adapter (24x).  This left a depth-of-field that was razor thin, so it took a few shots to get the front edge of the carapace in focus.  What you get to see here is greatly magnified.

Click for larger, higher res image

The Herald editorial:

The Labour Party says it has no record of any contributions from him but there is more than one way to donate to a party. At a Labour fundraising auction in 2007 Mr Liu bought a book signed by Helen Clark for which, the Herald’s sources say, he paid $15,000. The same year he paid an unknown large sum for a bottle of wine at a fundraiser.

Mr Cunliffe, who became Immigration Minister in 2006, claimed this week that not only had he never advocated for Mr Liu in an immigration application but had never met him. Now that the first claim has proven false, the second takes on a different hue. Sadly, it is all too likely that an MP could write in support of an application for an immigrant he had never met.

But none of this matters as much as the word of a party leader bidding to be Prime Minister in a few months. Mr Cunliffe cannot afford to fall from his high horse more than once. This denial might not force his resignation or ouster but it has done Labour no favours. Next time its leader puts on his scolding face, it will be less convincing. That is the price he has paid.

Gordon Campbell is more harsh:

Who knew that David Cunliffe’s speech to last year’s Labour Party conference was not a new beginning, but the last gasp of the credible phase of his leadership? In itself, his 2003 letter to the Immigration Service was innocuous. Yet only a Jesuit could make the fine distinction that Labour is now trying to make between Cunliffe’s inquiry about how long Donghua Liu’s residency application was taking, and outright “advocacy” for that application to be approved. Not surprisingly, such letters are seen by officials as “hurry up” reminders, and are intended to serve as such. This was advocacy; the same advocacy that Cunliffe had just this week denied ever making. Probably he did so unknowingly. Either way though – fool or knave – it’s not a good look.

The inability of Cunliffe and his staff to adequately research Cunliffe’s track record with Liu is also lamentable – especially given that photos of Labour MPs in the friendly company of Liu had already emerged. Yet earlier this week, Cunliffe had been left to paint himself into a corner of denial, only to be sandbagged by the revelation of the letter’s existence. As yet, we are still reliant on Labour Party researchers to verify whether Labour did or didn’t receive a sizeable donation from Liu. It should be remembered that National Cabinet Minister Maurice Williamson resigned because of his meddling in a Police investigation and not over a donations scandal, per se. Yet Labour had gone on to use the meddling/donation link to Liu as ammunition in its general attack on National and its fat cat donors. All it will take now is evidence of a donation from Liu to Labour to put the noose firmly around Labour’s neck.

Clearly, Cunliffe is now virtually a spent force as Labour leader.

Campbell is not so keen on Labour’s next leader:

There is no visible alternative. Grant Robertson is cut from the same hyper-calculating, micro-positioning cloth. What really ails Labour is that it is a centre left party whose parliamentary caucus is terrified – literally terrified – of its own left wing shadow.

Also the ODT editorial:

The grubby pit of current New Zealand politics became even more distasteful yesterday when it was revealed Labour leader David Cunliffe appeared guilty of the actions of which he had accused his National Party opponents.

Despite his denials at a hastily-called press conference, a letter signed by Mr Cunliffe, as MP for New Lynn, shows he advocated for businessman Donghua Liu in a letter to immigration officials, contradicting earlier assurances he had not lobbied for the political donor. …

Labour MPs will be discussing the situation intensely, given the party’s ongoing poor showing in the polls and Mr Cunliffe’s personal polling, and now credibility, sinking lower by the week. …

Morally, Mr Cunliffe should resign as soon as possible, but unless someone taps him on the shoulder to take over the poisoned chalice which is the leadership of Labour, he seems likely to stay on and ride out the controversy until the September 20 election.

And then the ABCs will strike.

The SMH gives its list of the top 16 GOT deaths.  They rate them out of 10 for surprise, gore and impact. Their top 10 are:

Continue reading »

Barry Soper writes:

Before dispensing with his tie for the bowl up (more like a roll up) the PM stepped up to the microphone to share with them a bit of good old Kiwi humour.

He told the story of how his in-laws worked in a shoe factory when he was hanging out with his now wife Bronagh. She managed to score a holiday job at the factory and was soon put to work on making special cricket boots for none other than Hadlee, or Paddles as Key said he was affectionately known. It was when she filled out her tax form that she raised a few eyebrows, putting her job down as “stud screwer”.  Yeah, that’s what Kiwi told his audience.

He said the office girl at the factory asked her to find a more appropriate description of her job, like factory worker.  Her blokey boyfriend was having none of it, he said. He encouraged her to stick with ‘stud screwer’ for very different reasons. 

Heh. I love the fact we have a PM with such a normal sense of humour.

The Herald reports:

Investment in resource extraction from New Zealand’s vast Exclusive Economic Zone has taken a major knock today, with a decision-making committee of the Environmental Protection Authority rejecting an application from TransTasman Resources to mine ironsands off the seabed some 22 to 36 kilometres off the coast of Patea.

TTR issued a statement disclosing the rejection ahead of detail from the EPA, saying it was “extremely disappointed with the decision.”

The company spent some $60 million over seven years developing the project, which it believed could be achieved in an environmentally sustainable way and create additional exports of around $150 million a year from the export of around five million tonnes annually of titano-magnetite iron ore to Asian steelmills, using a suction dredging process that would have returned 90 per cent of the sands to the ocean floor.

“We have put a significant amount of time and effort into developing this project including consulting with iwi and local communities and undertaking detailed scientific research to assess environmental impacts of the project,” said TTR’s chief executive, Tim Crossley.

“Our objective has been to develop an iron sands extraction project which achieves substantial economic development while protecting the environment.

The EPA makes independent decisions, and they obviously didn’t feel comfortable approving the project.

It is a pity though as there was huge economic potential from ironsands, and the area being applied for was in Taranaki, well away from any well populated beach areas,

But at least it means those who claimed the new EPA process wouldn’t protect the environment can’t scaremonger any more on that.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand’s economy grew at a 3.3 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, the fastest first-quarter pace in eight years, supporting the central bank’s view that it must press on with interest rate increases to keep inflation at bay.

The economy grew 1 percent pace in the first three months of the year, from an upwardly revised 1 percent gain in the fourth quarter, marking three quarters of growth at 1 percent or above, Statistics New Zealand said. Quarterly growth was below the 1.2 percent expected in a Reuters poll of economists although the annual rate beat the forecast for 3.1 percent.

Three quarters in a row with growth above 1%. If the next quarter is the same, then we’ll be over the 4% growth mark.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions for Ministers 2.00PM-3.00PM

1. CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress in building a growing economy that can support more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?

2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Is he concerned about rising inequality in New Zealand?

3. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister of Commerce: Has he received any reports on anti-competitive behaviour in the banking sector?

4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made on the Christchurch Hospitals’ redevelopment?

5. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Which of the statements, if any, by NZIER chief economist, Shamubeel Eaqub does he agree with most: that interest rate rises will punish the provinces, that “one of the biggest issues of this generation is the widening gap between the haves and have-nots”, or that “The gaps opening up in New Zealand are really big across geographical, race and education lines”?

6. KEVIN HAGUE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with Professor Jonathan Boston that there are New Zealand children living in “houses that don’t have heating, in caravans that don’t have running water, and in families that simply don’t have enough food of the right kind every day”; if so, will she guarantee these children have immediate access to the State support they need?

7. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Economic Development: On how many occasions has he discussed the current pay negotiations for Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment staff with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and on what dates did those discussions take place?

8. IAN McKELVIE to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcement has he made regarding the biocontainment facility at Wallaceville?

9. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 7 yesterday?

10. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Does the draft Government Policy Statement on transport funding identify any funding for the Auckland City Rail Link in the transport budget over the next decade?

11. CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that schools receive sufficient funding to deliver the New Zealand Curriculum; if so, why?

12. Hon PHIL HEATLEY to the Minister for Senior Citizens: What recent reports has she released relating to enduring powers of attorney?

Today Labour are asking about inequality, interest rate increases, pay negotiations for MBIE, savings in the health system, and school funding.  The Greens are asking about inequality and rail transport. New Zealand First is asking about anti-competitive behaviour in the banking sector.

Patsy of the day goes to Ian McKelvie for Question 8: What recent announcement has he made regarding the biocontainment facility at Wallaceville?

Government Bills

1. Taxation (Annual Rates, Employee Allowances, and Remedial Matters) Bill – Third Reading

2. Vulnerable Children Bill – Third Reading

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Employee Allowances, and Remedial Matters) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Revenue, Todd McClay. This taxation omnibus bill introduces amendments to various Inland Revenue Acts.

The Vulnerable Children Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for Social Development.  This is an omnibus bill that proposes establishing the Vulnerable Children Act and the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. The purpose of the proposed amendments is to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children.

Stuff reports:

Boys in single-sex education are performing better than in co-educational and appear to be ditching the sporty stereotype for one where it is “cool to achieve”, an education researcher says.

Forty-two per cent of boys-only school leavers between 2010 and 2012 attained University Entrance, 83 per cent at least NCEA Level 2, and 8 per cent gained no qualification.

This compared with 23 per cent of male co-educational school leavers attaining University Entrance, 69 per cent with at least NCEA Level 2, and 17 per cent without any qualification.

But a Canterbury co-educational school principal argues the quality of the school is more important than gender variables.

The research clearly shows that single sex schools do better overall.

Of course an individual co-educational school may do better than a particular single sex school, but 42% gaining UE compared to 23% is a very significant difference.

This makes you wonder why (off memory) successive governments have had a policy that new schools must be co-educational. A while back I read there had been no new single sex boys school for over 25 years.

The Herald reports on the most and least trusted NZers. The 10 least trusted (in order) are:

1. Hone Harawira
2. Kim Dotcom
3. Michael Laws
4. David Cunliffe
5. Winston Peters
6. Bunny McDiarmid (Greenpeace)
7. Matt McCarten
8. Michael Fay
9. Russel Norman
10. Metiria Turei

Is it a coincidence that eight out of the 10 least trusted would all be key players in a Labour-led Government?

The most trusted is Willie Apiata.

The Herald editorial:

The most contentious idea involves changing the burden of proof so it lies with the perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence, not the victims. Allied to this is a review of the adversarial system that is said to place an excessive burden of proof on victims, and to lead often to drawn-out proceedings that further disadvantage victims and put many into significant debt.

The report says people with experience of the present model had indicated they would favour a more collaborative system.

The report is not totally out of step in advancing these views. A flipping of the deeply embedded precept of the burden of proof, whereby the necessity to provide proof lies with whoever lays charges, is no longer beyond the pale. Abusive parents must now prove to Child, Youth and Family that they are no longer a threat. As well, bail amendment legislation requires a person on a murder charge or repeat violence, class A drug or sex charges to persuade a judge that the community will be safe if they are released. New Zealand’s appalling family violence record — the police respond to a call relating to this every seven minutes, according to the report — convinces some that there is good reason to further override the principle.

These are about people who have already been convicted of an offence. That is very different to saying anyone charged should have to prove their innocence.

But any such impulse should be resisted. Arguably, the two steps taken by the Government are valid responses to extraordinary circumstances where there is a clear danger to members of society. Both do not involve such a sweeping inversion of the burden of proof principle as would be the case if it were applied to all alleged perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence.

The precept that a defendant has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty is too fundamental to our legal system and too strong a safeguard against wrongful conviction to be so comprehensively dismissed.

Absolutely. But sadly Labour is incapable of even deciding they’re against such a thing.

Labour’s @DavidCunliffeMP says they need to consider Glenn Inquiry report before taking a position on proposal to shift burden of proof

— Felix Marwick (@felixmarwick) June 16, 2014

So I’ve got an idea. If Labour is open to reversing the burden of proof on allegations, then we should start the process by alleging that they have filed corrupt false donation returns and require them to prove they are innocent!

Stuff has counted up Cunliffe’s catastrophes, or gaffes. There’s eight in 10 months which suggests it is the only consistent thing about Labour. They are:

1. Denying he knew Liu or had ever advocated for him, the day before a letter reveals he did exactly that
2. Attacked John Key for living in a leafy suburb, while living on the most expensive road in Herne Bay
3. Setting up a secret trust for his leadership campaign
4. A misleading speech on the best start policy which falsely claimed 25,000 people would get a payment they wouldn’t
5. Claiming his grandfather won a medal when it was his great uncle
6. Breaking electoral law by tweeting on BE-Day for people to vote for the Labour candidate
7. Posting Grant Robertson’s leadership candidacy statement as his own
8. A CV which had several “mistakes” in it

Stuff are also running a poll on people’s favourite gaffe. Herne Bay leads with 37%, then the secret trust on 22% and Dong Liu on 19%.

One might add on his statement today as a 9th gaffe. The Herald reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has issued a veiled warning to his caucus against any move against him, saying he has the support of Labour Party members and affiliates and any who break ranks could be viewed as scabs – workers who break a strike by crossing the picket line.

That’s really going to impress MPs such as Andrew Little – a lifelong unionist. Calling someone a scab is one of the worst insults in the Labour movement, and implying anyone who thinks Cunliffe is not performing well enough as Labour Leader is a scab will go down like cold sick with them.

I understand that two different Labour MPs have confirmed Grant Robertson has the numbers to roll Cunliffe. In fact Grant has had them for a few weeks. But the issue is whether Grant wants the leadership now, or to take it after the election. His preference is to wait, rather than do a Mike Moore. But as his colleagues consider how many of them are set to lose their seats – his hand may be forced.

I’ve blogged at Curiablog the results of the latest Fairfax Ipsos poll which has Labour plummet to 23% and National up 9% to 56%.

It is important to note that this poll was taken BEFORE yesterday’s revelations that Cunliffe denial’s about involvement with secret Labour Party donor Dong Liu were false. God knows where they would be today, except to say they seem well place to beat National’s record low of 21% in 2002.

Stuff says Labour would be reduced to 29 seats on this poll. They have (effectively) 23 electorate seats so that means they would get only six list MPs. Of course it might be fewer than that if NZ First does make 5% and/or they win any extra Maori seats.

So who loses their seat on this poll:

Kelvin Davis, Carol Beaumont, Rajen Prasad, Moana Mackey and Andrew Little all go, plus no replacements for Jones, Fenton and Prasad,

The MP on the verge of losing her seat is Jacinda Ardern.  But she could be saved by Labour’s gender equity rule. For this election 47% of caucus must be female.   That means at least 14 of the 29 MP must be female.  Of Labour’s 23 electorate seats (I include Kelston), nine are female. So 5 of the 6 List MPs must be female. So David Parker would just keep his seat, but all other male List MPs would be gone.

Some interesting data from Stats NZ 2013 disability survey.

• 24% (1.06 million) of the population have a disability, up from 20% (760 million) in 2001
• By age 11% of under 15s have a disability rising to 59% of over 65%
• By ethnicity 23% of Maori aged 15 to 44 have a disability, 16% of Europeans, 17% of Pacific and just 10% of Asians
• 11% of population have a sensory disability, 14% physical, 2% intellectual, and 5% psychiatric/psychological
• 9% have a hearing disability, 4% a sight disability, 13% a mobility disability, 7% agility disability, 3% speaking disability, 5% learning disability and 4% remembering disability
• 41% of those with a disability say it is due to disease or illness, 31% accident or injury, 14% had since birth and 28% due to aging
• Auckland has the lowest disability rate at 19% and Taranaki highest at 30%

David Cunliffe announced yesterday:

“Under a Labour government all employees aged between 18 and 65 – with the exception of students, beneficiaries and the self-employed – will be automatically enrolled in KiwiSaver. The opt-out provision will be removed.

This means that people will lose the ability to choose how to invest their money. Some employees may have a very rational reason not to invest in KiwiSaver. They may be saving for a major purchase, or to buy into a business. They may want to pay off debt. Instead Labour is going to force them all into a savings scheme.

“Labour will retain the $1000 kick-start and government contribution of up to $521 a year.

That’s stupid. If it is compulsory, then you don’t need the kick-start or a government contribution. That’s just taxing people more to give it back to them. Those attributes were only needed to encourage people to enrol, but with compulsion makes no sense.

We will also increase the employer and employee minimum contribution rates gradually by 0.25 per cent a year over six years; rising from the current 3 per cent each to 4.5 per cent in 2021.

Which means the same drop in take home pay. That may be fine for some or most – but who force that on everyone.

Stats NZ reports:

New Zealand’s seasonally adjusted current account balance was a deficit of $0.6 billion in the March 2014 quarter, Statistics New Zealand said today. This is $0.3 billion smaller than the December 2013 quarter deficit.

An increase in the value of goods exports, combined with higher spending by overseas visitors to New Zealand contributed to the fall in the current account deficit this quarter.

“The smaller deficit follows last quarter’s $1.6 billion fall, making this the smallest current account deficit since 2010,” international statistics manager Jason Attewell said.

Before removing seasonal effects, the current account balance was a surplus of $1.4 billion – the largest actual current account surplus ever recorded.

I’m pretty sure Labour have been going on about the current account crisis for a while, so we should thank them for curing this also.

New Zealand’s annual current account was a deficit of $6.3 billion (2.8 percent of GDP) for the year ended March 2014. This compares with a deficit of $7.6 billion (3.4 percent of GDP) for the year ended December 2013, and is also $2.0 billion smaller than the deficit for the year ended March 2013, when it was 3.9 percent of GDP.

So it is now 2.8% of GDP. What has it been?

tradingeconomics.com

This doesn’t include the latest quarter but one can see that the deficit is now less than a third of what it was under Labour, as a proportion of GDP.

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.

They now reveal that he wrote to immigration officials on his behalf in 2003:

The 2003 letter was written in his capacity as the MP for New Lynn after he was “approached my constituent Donghua Lui [sic] who is concerned at the time it is taking to process his Investment Category application”.

Mr Cunliffe this week denied any involvement with Liu’s residency bid after the Herald revealed the property developer paid $15,000 at a Labour Party fundraiser for a book signed by Helen Clark in 2007.

The letter, released to the Herald today under the Official Information Act, dated April 11, 2003 said Liu’s application for residency was accepted for processing by the Immigration Service on August 13, 2002.

Mr Cunliffe said Mr Liu wished to set up a joint venture business with his Tianlong Property Development Company – which owns his stalled property development in Newmarket – to export large quantities of agricultural and horticultural products to China.

“It is hoped that products from the company will be available to the market in July 2003,” wrote Mr Cunliffe.

“I am aware of the difficulties facing the Business Migration Branch of New Zealand Immigration Services in coping with the overwhelming numbers of applicants that have applied for consideration under these categories and the time taken to verify documents.

“However, it would be very helpful to Mr Liu to be advised of an estimated period of time in which he could expect a decision on his case.”

So what do we have now:

• David Cunliffe denied advocating on behalf of Liu or ever even meeting him, yet wrote a letter on his behalf to immigration officials
• Liu made two large donations to Labour (one for a book and one for wine), neither of which Labour ever disclosed
• A former Labour Internal Affairs Minister was hosted by Liu in China, with costs likely to be well over $500 yet not disclosed on the Register of Pecuniary Interests
• Labour granted Liu residency despite official advice, after lobbying by Cunliffe

In light of all of this, the Electoral Commission needs to formally investigate Labour’s 2007 donations return and determine why these donations were not disclosed.

But most of all David Cunliffe has to explain why he denied knowing Liu or advocating for him, when his name and i signature is on a letter doing just that.

UPDATE: John Armstrong writes:

David Cunliffe is in deep political trouble. So deep that his resignation as Labour’s leader may now be very much in order.

It now emerges that – contrary to the point-blank denials that Cunliffe gave to a press conference only yesterday – that he did assist controversial businessman Donghua Liu in the latter’s application for New Zealand residency.

At a minimum, the revelation that Cunliffe wrote a letter to immigration officials seeking information on progress regarding the residency application is a massive blow to the Labour leader’s personal credibility. How can anyone have any confidence in what he says from hereon?

Harsh, but what his colleagues will be wondering.

Cunliffe may argue that the letter was about immigration processes and written on a constituent’s behalf – something MPs frequently do – and therefore was not an endorsement of the application.

But that does not wash. Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.

He has called for National Party ministers’ heads to roll for the equivalent or less. Having set the standard required of others, it is incumbent on him to himself follow suit.

The self-ravaging of his credibility means Labour now has to abandon its strategy of trying to paint John Key and National as corrupt. To carry on it that fashion would be the height of hypocrisy.

But the bigger question now is whether Cunliffe can lead Labour into the coming election campaign with this albatross reeking around his neck.

Unless Cunliffe can come up with a very good explanation, the answer has to be ‘no’. After all Cunliffe is not just trying to win the election, he is also auditioning for the job of Prime Minister. And on that score, today’s events qualify as a fail – and by a wide margin.

Ouch.

The only relatively good news for his colleagues – if you can call it good news – is that under Labour Party rules dealing with emergency situations close to an election, the ballot on a replacement is likely to be restricted to the parliamentary wing rather than also taking in the wider party membership and affiliated trade unions.

Wouldn’t it be fascinating if certain Labour MPs knew that Liu had donated to Labour, but deliberately didn’t tell Cunliffe, so that this would blow up at this stage.

UPDATE2: Duncan Garner writes:

If David Cunliffe’s credibility wasn’t shot before this, it is now. Cunliffe is now unelectable as the next Prime Minister.

He had made it clear: he had not had anything to do with, or met or advocated for National party donor Donghua Liu. But, that’s gone up in smoke, because it’s now become clear he did advocate for him as the local MP.

He wrote a letter to Immigration officials in April 2003 as the MP for New Lynn – on behalf of Liu who was concerned about the time it was taking to process his Investment Category application.

Cunliffe says he can’t recall any of it and his office had no record of the letter. That’s just hopeless. It’s not even a creative excuse.

None of this looks flash for Cunliffe. He looks dishonest and who can trust him now? This goes to the heart of his credibility, integrity and likeability; on all three fronts he’s in serious trouble.

He’s either got “brain-fade”, or he’s a sloppy liar. Perhaps both.

Garner concludes:

This is sloppy and his opponents in caucus will write today’s date down: today is crucial. Today is the day his MPs all privately lost the faith; they’ll be sharpening their knives for the days after the election.

David Cunliffe is toast. Not immediately, but his days are numbered. Unless he can pull off some sort of unlikely and remarkable election victory – which today – just became even more remote.

Labour is now at 23% to win on iPredict.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers 2.00-3.00PM

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement that “if New Zealanders saved more, the money could go into the productive sector and fund new companies and investments”?
2. PAUL FOSTER-BELL to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on progress New Zealand is making in improving its external trade and investment position with the rest of the world?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Minister for Economic Development: Did he meet with the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on 4 June 2014, and if so did he discuss with him the pay negotiations that were underway with MBIE staff?
4. MELISSA LEE to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about campaigns to prevent sexual violence amongst young people?
5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by all his decisions?
6. JACQUI DEAN to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What announcements has he made on the Christchurch Innovation Precinct?
7. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister of Health: What concerns, if any, has he expressed regarding the progress Health Benefits Ltd has made towards obtaining the $700 million of “savings” which he required them to obtain in September 2012?
8. SHANE ARDERN to the Minister of Health: What recent investments has the Government made in health services for the Bay of Plenty?
9. TRACEY MARTIN to the Minister of Education: How much public money has been spent on land and other physical assets for Partnership schools up to 31 March 2014?
10. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Conservation: What steps has the Government taken to improve marine protection, particularly in respect of dolphins?
11. Dr MEGAN WOODS to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: How many secondary schools currently receive Adult and Community Education funding compared to the 212 secondary schools in 2009 when the funding was cut?
12. JAN LOGIE to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement in relation to sexual and domestic violence that “it is actually about services on the ground that are able to address it”?

Today Labour are asking about household savings, pay negotiations with MBIE, savings in the Health budget, and Adult and Community Education funding. The Greens are asking whether the Minister for Energy and Resources stands by all his decisions, and services to address sexual and domestic violence. New Zealand First are asking about partnership schools.

Patsy of the day goes to Jonathan Young for Question 10: What steps has the Government taken to improve marine protection, particularly in respect of dolphins?

General Debate 3.00 -4.00PM

A debate of 12 speeches of no more than 5 minutes each. Entertaining and informative.

Government Bills 4.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM-10.00PM.

1. Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

2. Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill – Committee Stage

3. Taxation (Annual Rates, Employee Allowances, and Remedial Matters) Bill – Third Reading

The Companies and Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. This bill amends the Companies Act 1993 and the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 so as to increase confidence in New Zealand’s financial markets and regulation of corporate forms.

The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill would establish a mechanism for a victim of a violent offence to obtain a non-contact order against an offender sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more.

The Taxation (Annual Rates, Employee Allowances, and Remedial Matters) Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Revenue, Todd McClay. This taxation omnibus bill introduces amendments to various Inland Revenue Acts.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has ruled out sending New Zealand special forces soldiers to Iraq as the United States mulls options in response to an unfolding crisis there.

Speaking in New York, Key said the New Zealand government was currently looking at what humanitarian aid it might provide as tens of thousands of Iraqis have been displaced by a violent takeover of parts of the country. …

New Zealand special forces soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan in a similar role.

But Key said he did not believe it likely that New Zealand special forces would be deployed or requested.

“I don’t think that’s likely. We’re just so far away from probably ever having to make that call. But in the end in so much as with any global issue, as things play out New Zealand would always look to the [United Nations] Security Council for its view and its sanction of anything that may happen. So you can never say never in a world where the Security Council decides that Iraq needs support of some sort, engineers or whatever it might be, that could always be considered but I think that’s very unlikely.”

Asked if that meant he could rule out New Zealand special forces soldiers being deployed to Iraq, even in an advisory capacity, Key responded; “I would say yes’.

This means that the only Prime Minister to seen soldiers to Iraq remains Helen Clark.