Jones affair – politics not always simple

Written By: - Date published: 9:30 am, May 23rd, 2012 - 227 comments
Categories: Ethics, im/migration, Shane Jones - Tags:

Perhaps a little bored with the multiple National / ACT self-inflicted fiascos, the media (and the braying right-wing blogs of course) have been bleeding plenty of ink over Shane Jones’ actions in granting citizenship to a decidedly dodgy Chinese immigrant. Jones hasn’t really put his side of the story – until last night:

MP told immigrant would be ‘jailed and executed’

Labour MP Shane Jones has revealed why he allowed Chinese immigrant Yong Ming Yan, charged with making false statements to gain citizenship, to stay in New Zealand. …

As a minister, Mr Jones signed off on Yong Ming Yan’s application to become a New Zealand citizen, despite officials telling him not to. “I was told the execution of this man…that he would be executed…which is the reason the officials gave for him not wanting to go back to China.”

Mr Jones said declining it would have been like signing a death warrant. Mr Jones says he was told that Mr Yan would be “jailed, executed and his organs harvested” if he was sent back to China. “That to me comprised grounds for a humanitarian decision,” Mr Jones says.

He confirmed those were the words used to describe the situation. “When a Government official in a minister’s office says such a thing so graphic that I actually wrote it down.” …

Mr Jones says he would be happy for any investigation to take place into his role in this matter.

I’m glad Jones is open to an investigation. That’s the right course of action, and if he is found to have acted unethically he should go. But those who are prematurely calling for Jones’ head, and trying to turn the situation into an attack on Shearer, should now take some time out to consider their own actions. They should ask themselves if they, in Jones’ position, would have taken action that they honestly believed would condemn a man to death.

Politics is not always simple.

Update: Part of a post from NRT:

Shane Jones made the right decision

… Under those circumstances there’s a clear humanitarian case. So clear, in fact, that it would be unlawful to remove Liu from the country. We don’t extradite people to execution. We don’t deport them to it either. Any Minister in Jones’ position would have made exactly the same decision. And if not, the courts would have made it for them.

227 comments on “Jones affair – politics not always simple ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. TheContrarian 1
    23 May 2012 at 9:43 am

    “would have taken action that they honestly believed would condemn a man to death.” Normally such things would end in asylum not in granting citizenship.

    • Deano 1.1
      23 May 2012 at 10:30 am

      what do you think asylum is? The person has to have some legal status in this country ie residency or citizenship. Refugees who get asylum become residents or citizens. There’s no such status as ‘asylum recipient’

  2. alwyn 2
    23 May 2012 at 9:53 am

    He was being asked to give the guy citizenship.
    He wasn’t being asked to order him to be deported back to China.
    That has got to be the feeblest arguement yet.

    • Colonial Viper 2.1
      23 May 2012 at 11:18 am

      What weird logic. However, it reads like you do agree with Jones’ decision that the Chinese national should be granted rights to stay in NZ?

      • gareth 2.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 11:53 am

        If there was credible information indicating execution then yes he should have been allowed to stay.
        But I cannot understand why (with all the red flags) he was given citizenship and a NZ passport.
        Surely as he already had permanent residency that would be sufficient. Certainly it seems strange the Shane Jones signed off extremely quickly followed by an equally quick ceremony with labour mps present.
        How he got residency in the first place is a whole different question.
        It all seems a bit smelly to me…..

      • alwyn 2.1.2
        23 May 2012 at 12:43 pm

        I most certainly don’t agree with Jones’ decision to grant him citizenship if that was his reason.
        The guy had, thanks to Cunnliffe in, I think, 2002, a residency permit. He wasn’t going to be kicked out of the country. There was no likelihood of him being sent back to China to be executed anyway. We don’t allow extradition where the person could face capital punishment.
        We also have him claiming that he would get citizenship and that he was going to take his MP friends back to China with him. Hardly likely if he was going to be killed don’t you think?
        What I think Jones was doing was paying off on the promises made to Liu (or whatever his name really is) by Labour party fundraisers who owed him big-time. I would be curious where the orders to Jones came from. I don’t think he did it just because Dover, a man on the way out of Parliament, asked him to.

        • Pascal's bookie 2.1.2.1
          23 May 2012 at 1:09 pm

          I don’t think anyone has mentioned extradition.

          the claim about going back to China is an odd bit of big noting. When was it made?

          Was it during the time Immigration were investigating him with a view to chucking him out of the country?

  3. Jeremy Harris 3
    23 May 2012 at 10:02 am

    Why would officials be recommending not granting him citizenship if they reasonably believed he was “going to be executed and his organs harvested”?

    It doesn’t make sense.

    • Sam Hall 3.1
      23 May 2012 at 11:38 am

      I am intrigued by the practice of the Chinese to execute and harvest the organs of corrupt businessman and Party members

  4. tsmithfield 4
    23 May 2012 at 10:08 am

    There appears to have been some seriously dodgy shit that has gone on here, and I am not sure that it stops with Jones. I won’t bother what repeating what has already been covered extensively on other blogs. However, even a generous reading of the facts that have come out raises serious questions about what has gone on in this process.

    • bbfloyd 4.1
      23 May 2012 at 11:59 am

      the only “dodgy shit” going on here is TS reading with one eye shut… it’s ruining his depth perception….

      the trolls are desperate.. the trolls are desperate…. the trolls are desperate….

  5. Pascal's bookie 5
    23 May 2012 at 10:14 am

    It always fascinates me when people put on their harrumphing hats say that something “raises serious questions that need to be answered”, and then go all quite about what these serious questions actually are.

    ‘It’s all just a bit murky, a bit suspect like, it’s the vibe of the thing.’

    I’m seeing a bit of this. dark murmerings. Utterances of concern.

    Anyone laid a complaint with the rozzers yet? The auditor general?

    If not, Why the fuck not?

    If the guy’s a crook, get him gone, right?

  6. Jackal 6
    23 May 2012 at 10:16 am

    A diversionary storm in a teacup if you ask me. Although an investigation is warranted.

  7. tsmithfield 7
    23 May 2012 at 10:17 am

    How about this article for a start.

    The high-ranking officials were stunned when then Cabinet minister Shane Jones approved the application one day after getting his file. They were certain Yong Ming Yan, also known as Bill Liu, who had been red-flagged by Interpol, stood little chance.

    But Yan leaned back in his chair, with his arms behind his head, and said he was 99 per cent confident he would get citizenship, the court was told yesterday.

    “He said he had a lot of support from members of Parliament … he was going to take them to China,” Internal Affairs case officer Olele Johannes Gambo said.

    Notice in the quote above that Yan was confident he was going to get citizenship due to support from members of parliament, and he was going to take them to China.

    So, contrary to what Jones has claimed, Yan didn’t seem particularly worried about getting executed in China, or having his organs harvested because, according to him, he was planning a trip back there.

    • grumpy 7.1
      23 May 2012 at 10:23 am

      ….and…….didn’t he actually go back to China in the interim??? So much for fear of execution.

    • Jackal 7.2
      23 May 2012 at 10:29 am

      What the article fails to make clear is that Yan made the statement sometime before he got residency in 2008, Yan did not make that statement in the court hearing as the article implies. There is also the fact that Jones was likely to have had the file for over a month, which would make the Fairfax article untruthful.

      Yan might not have been worried about being chopped up for his organs while also giving information that was relayed to Jones that said he was in danger. In that case Yan would be a liar… and who exactly is it again who is on trial for making false statements on his application?

      Until we know the facts of the matter, all your speculation looks pretty stupid really!

    • rosy 7.3
      23 May 2012 at 10:15 pm

      The dates in that article don’t match the dates on the files that investigate magazine [sorry about the source] seems to have gotten hold of…

      http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jonesfile.pdf

      The article says the files went to Jones May – the DIA document recommending declining citizenship is dated July. Is it the same file? I’m confused.

  8. mickysavage 8
    23 May 2012 at 10:25 am

    Can I make a generalised plea that will benefit all parties and prevent any sort of murky dealing from happening.
     
    Let’s have state funding for political parties.  No private donations, no favours, no undue influence by individuals.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 8.1
      23 May 2012 at 10:46 am

      +100

      Do you think we should compensate the National Party’s owners for the loss of their property?

      • Socialist Paddy 8.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 11:02 am

        As soon as they compensate the New Zealand people for 80 years of pillage and theft.

    • higherstandard 8.2
      23 May 2012 at 10:56 am

      Oh fuck off, the public fund the vast amount of cost for these fuck wits at present through parliamentary largesse for secretaries, analysts and assorted other hacks.

      As long as all donations above a nominal value are transparent who gives a flying fuck.

      • mickysavage 8.2.1
        23 May 2012 at 11:01 am

        As long as all donations above a nominal value are transparent who gives a flying fuck

        • mickysavage 8.2.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 11:28 am

          Oops editor lost some text.  I meant to say …
           
          As long as all donations above a nominal value are transparent who gives a flying fuck
           
          Anyone with a concern about the health of their democracy.

          • higherstandard 8.2.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 11:56 am

            So how will this work ?

            We currently fund these turds during the election campaign based on the number of MPs, if you’re wanting to increase this funding by how much … why do they need more money ?

            • Draco T Bastard 8.2.1.1.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 2:32 pm

              I don’t see MS saying that funding should be increased.

          • Adolph Koshler 8.2.1.1.2
            23 May 2012 at 7:23 pm

            I am, how many more MPs have to go to prison before we can put a stop to the complete arrogance of these people over immigration. First Philip Field and now Jones, when will the corruption stop. There needs to be a complete investigation into the behavior of the Immigration department and all respective ministers regardless of political party.

      • Colonial Viper 8.2.2
        23 May 2012 at 11:21 am

        Yeah public funding of political parties. And limit donations from legal entities and persons to $200 each per party per election year.

        • Draco T Bastard 8.2.2.1
          23 May 2012 at 2:35 pm

          Legal entities shouldn’t be allowed to make donations at all.

          • higherstandard 8.2.2.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 2:37 pm

            Trade Unions ?

            • McFlock 8.2.2.1.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 2:53 pm

              Included. Just as long as corporations, anonymous trusts and loud rich pricks have to play be the same rules.

            • KJT 8.2.2.1.1.2
              23 May 2012 at 3:03 pm

              Non democratic entities not allowed to make donations?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                23 May 2012 at 4:08 pm

                Gets too wishy washy. Just watch as the boards of major corporations say that they’re a democratic entity and thus should be allowed to donate in the name of the corporation.

            • Draco T Bastard 8.2.2.1.1.3
              23 May 2012 at 4:07 pm

              Are a legal entity and thus would not be allowed to make donations. Of course, nothing stopping the unions from discussing which would be the best party from their POV and recommending that the individuals make a donation to that party. Nor is there anything preventing the union from running their own political campaign.

              • higherstandard …
                23 May 2012 at 4:10 pm

                So you’re against Presland’s proposal ?

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  23 May 2012 at 6:31 pm

                  Nope, I actually think that political parties should be government funded with the exact same funding.

            • mickysavage 8.2.2.1.1.4
              23 May 2012 at 10:07 pm

              Trade Unions ?

              Yep.  Only in RWNJ land do some think that the Service and Food Workers Union have the same resources as Fletcher Challenge, Sky City, Telecom, Todd Corporation …

              • higherstandard …
                24 May 2012 at 7:11 am

                So let me get this right in your funding utopia individuals can’t donate, neither can private companies but it’s OK for unions to do so…….. partisan much Greg ?

      • felix 8.2.3
        24 May 2012 at 1:40 am

        “Oh fuck off, the public fund the vast amount of cost for these fuck wits at present”

        So what’s the problem then?

        • higherstandard 8.2.3.1
          24 May 2012 at 7:12 am

          None, apart from Greg wanting to tap the public for a top up and only being interested in skewing the rules to suit his usual partisan hackery.

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 8.3
      23 May 2012 at 2:41 pm

      Last time the state funded Jones he spent it all on porn.

      • KJT 8.3.1
        23 May 2012 at 5:27 pm

        So what. He was paying it back before he was asked.

        As the saying goes: “there are two types of people, there’s wankers and there’s liars”.

        Meanwhile. When are Banks and Brash going to be indited for financial fraud?
        A polite term for a white collar bank robber.

        • Jared 8.3.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 10:01 pm

          Financial Fraud? You mean Electoral Fraud right?

          • Carol 8.3.1.1.1
            24 May 2012 at 9:33 am

            No, it’s related to Banks and Brash’s business dealings for a company where other directors have been charged with fraud.

      • Frank Macskasy 8.3.2
        24 May 2012 at 9:26 am

        What – ALL of it?! Millions of dollars on porn?? Wow – what a stud!!

  9. The Baron 9
    23 May 2012 at 10:46 am

    Right, so Jones acted on an unsubstantiated claim from the benefactor, that in no way has any bearing on immigration processes. Nothing in this post touches on the allegations of what Labour got in return. Pretty selective treatment of the story.

    Rob, your post smacks of “its AOK when my team does it”. Partisan fanboi-ery is just so, so lame.

    But positive questions time: Why do we need Ministerial involvement in immigration cases? Why can this not be left to Immigration without oversight – let the officials do their job according to the relevant legislation; and let the pollies set the relevant legislation?

    The only reason I can see for political interferance here is to allow for favours to be done. Why would we want that, regardless of which govt is doing it?

    • Pascal's bookie 9.1
      23 May 2012 at 10:55 am

      Laid a complaint with the police?

      Anyone?

      Why not?

      • higherstandard 9.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 11:00 am

        Has anyone done that with Banks yet ?

        Personally I think they’re both dodgy.

        • Jackal 9.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 11:03 am

          Yes! I think there are three complaints that have been laid and the Police are investigating.

        • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.2
          23 May 2012 at 11:04 am

          Yep, they are. Google

          police investigating john banks

          for details.

          • higherstandard 9.1.1.2.1
            23 May 2012 at 11:07 am

            I have a recollection they are from that moon bat Penny Bright, shouldn’t Labour or someone like the electoral commission do it ?

            • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1.2.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 11:28 am

              This sort of thing you mean?

              Mallard wrote to Auckland Council’s chief electoral officer, Bruce Thomas, yesterday asking him to investigate.

              “Transparency around election donations is a major protection against corruption in the New Zealand political system,” said Mallard.

              Thomas said he referred the matter to police as required when a written complaint is received.

              Yeah, someone should get on to that.

              • higherstandard …
                23 May 2012 at 11:46 am

                So the moon bat and the duck who continues to dodge being served……. fuck between the two major parties and the other leeches no wonder the public have long since given up on the politicians.

            • Adolph Koshler 9.1.1.2.1.2
              23 May 2012 at 8:28 pm

              No one would believe Penny Bright. There needs to be a proper complaint made.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                24 May 2012 at 6:28 am

                Like from, say, Auckland Council’s chief electoral officer, Bruce Thomas?

                Done.

        • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.3
          23 May 2012 at 2:39 pm

          Yep, Penny Bright has laid at least two and there are others.

      • The Baron 9.1.2
        23 May 2012 at 11:17 am

        Why not? Don’t give that much of a fuck and its not my job. I’m still allowed to comment on a blog though right?

        The whole “tell the cops” comeback is really lame, PB.

        • Pascal's bookie 9.1.2.1
          23 May 2012 at 11:25 am

          Really?

          You give enough of a fuck to comment about it, saying iit’s all very murky, and implying outright corruption.

          Never said you can’t comment.

          I’m just curious as to why there haven’t been any complaints lodged with anyone, by anyone; seeing so many poeple think it’s a big enough deal to be talking about.

          Sorry if that curiousity offends you Baron.

    • Jackal 9.2
      23 May 2012 at 10:57 am

      Because of people like Mary Anne Thompson. I think Ministerial oversight is appropriate, being that they are meant to be representatives of the public and the public often has a different opinion to what Immigration believes.

      Rob, your post smacks of “its AOK when my team does it”.

      I don’t think so. In comparison John Banks is under investigation by the Police for serious issues that have corroborating evidence. Jones is not and there is as yet no evidence of wrongdoing. All politicians should be held to the same high standard.

      • higherstandard 9.2.1
        23 May 2012 at 11:03 am

        That is some of the weakest cak you’ve ever posted, which is saying something.

        • Jackal 9.2.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 11:08 am

          Which part? The fact that Banks is under investigation by the Police while Jones isn’t or that I think Immigration should not be an autonomous organisation… or that I think all politicians should adhere and be accountable to the same principles and rules? All pretty reasonable assertions if you ask me.

          • higherstandard 9.2.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 11:51 am

            The fact that you use MA Thompson to make a smear of incompetence or possibly corruption in relation to the advice supplied in this case.

            The fact that Banks is under investigation by the police while Jones isn’t may be down to mere timing both are dodgy items.

            • Jackal 9.2.1.1.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 12:08 pm

              So let me get this right… There is presently no clear cut evidence of Shane Jones’ wrongdoing and John Key thinks he should be stood down, while John Banks stinks so much he would make a turd smell good and he gets to waft around the place?

              Such things might be down to timing, but yet again it might be down to evidence of wrongdoing. As there is no real evidence of wrongdoing by Jones, nobody has made a police complaint. If people truly think Jones is corrupt, they should do the right thing and make a Police complaint. Put your moralistic pontifications where your mouths are.

              I supplied a reason for why Immigration shouldn’t be autonomous. I haven’t seen their advice in relation to this matter or implied that it might be incompetent or corrupt… so what are you on about HS?

              • higherstandard …
                23 May 2012 at 12:24 pm

                Banks is still there because he is ACT and they need the numbers, he’ll be found not guilty by the police because our legislation surrounding anonymous donations and the like are laughable and more so at local body level.

                Shane Jones is still there because Shearer and his troops are still cogitating and waiting to see which way the wind blows. In terms of granting citizenship to any person I think it is a very slippery slope to be ignoring the advice of the Ministry or to be allowing any MP to be lobbying the Minister.

                • Jackal …
                  23 May 2012 at 1:46 pm

                  There’s nothing wrong with the legislation. It’s clear and precise for anybody who bothers to read it. The problem is that Banks chose not to adhere to it and it appears that he offered political favours when he got back into power in exchange for cash.

              • grumpy …
                23 May 2012 at 12:33 pm

                Banks was only a private citizen standing for Mayor of Auckland.

                Jones was a Minister of the Crown, acting within his portfolio.

              • Frank Macskasy …
                24 May 2012 at 9:30 am

                At least Shane Jones has a better memory and can recall situations four years ago.

                Banks couldn’t recall a helicopter flight, to one of Auckland’s biggest mansions, to meet a rather large German web entrepreneur with a thing for red sportscars…

                Yeah, right.:-D

        • bbfloyd 9.2.1.2
          23 May 2012 at 12:46 pm

          and resorting to abuse every time your own non existent arguments are shot to bits isn’t weak … little one? young TS …. do you ever actually listen to yourself? try it sometime.. you might be surprised at how silly you sound in real life…

      • The Baron 9.2.2
        23 May 2012 at 11:13 am

        I forgot about M.A.T., but still think immigration can be done better than allowing one official/poli unfettered ability to override things. Here’s one such suggestion – a cross parliamentary oversight panel has to approve exceptions to officials advice?

        I couldn’t care less about this whole JB vs MJ “who is worse” angle. In my book both are shits. Are you happy now? Polies on both sides sell us out, but still time for us to choose which one we like best based on our pre-determined political alignment.What a fucking wicked day it is.

    • r0b 9.3
      23 May 2012 at 11:12 am

      Rob, your post smacks of “its AOK when my team does it”.

      You mean the part where I said: “I’m glad Jones is open to an investigation. That’s the right course of action, and if he is found to have acted unethically he should go.” ??

      • The Baron 9.3.1
        23 May 2012 at 11:19 am

        I genuinely didn’t think you’d agree with me here anyway – fanbois always argue they ain’t fanbois after all – but sure, if that’s your balance then good luck with that.

  10. Bored 10
    23 May 2012 at 11:09 am

    It was all too easy for the hypocritical Key to have a go at Shane Jones. Lets just contrast the two:

    Jones as minister over rules his public servant advisors because he is faced with the possibility that sending a man back to China might (note might, no proof but a fair chance) result in the man being shot. He did not take the risk, life was probably adjudged to be more precious than “rules”. Humanity at the risk of being wrong prevailed.

    Key as PM was prevailed upon by Sri Lanka refugees who genuinely feared for their lives in a war zone. Key said no, hid behind the rules, preferring to gamble that these people would survive. No compassion ruled here despite the example NZ showed of allowing entry to his mother, a Jew whom Hitler would have gladly exterminated.

    Key and humanitarianism? Make your own minds up.

  11. tsmithfield 11
    23 May 2012 at 11:21 am

    And this article?

    Mr Phillips – also known as Shane Te Pou – told the court that he met Yan at a Labour Party fundraiser in Auckland’s Viaduct Harbour in March 2005 that he helped organise.

    He chatted with Yan for no more than 15 minutes and later invited him to join other guests for dinner and drinks.A few weeks later, Mr Phillips met Yan and his partner Vienna Yu at their penthouse apartment in the Metropolis tower, before having dinner together at a restaurant.

    At that meal, the topic of citizenship was discussed and Mr Phillips offered to help Yan obtain citizenship for a fee of $10,000 – half to be paid as a deposit. Asked by David Jones why he offered to help, Mr Phillips said Yan was a “man of success”.

    I can stand corrected, but as I understand it, Phillips has close ties to Labour and to Jone’s office.

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      23 May 2012 at 11:27 am

      Shane Te Pou is damn dodgy.

      • tsmithfield 11.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 11:43 am

        Yeah. Personally, I am not convinced that Jones is the source of any corruption, if it in fact it had occurred. If there has been corruption, it might well have occurred further down the food chain. Perhaps various MP’s have been spun a line here, and conned into supporting Yan.

        • bbfloyd 11.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 12:50 pm

          nice bit of backpedalling there TS…. something finally broke through the crust….

  12. prism 12
    23 May 2012 at 11:29 am

    It’s all good media beatup stuff. Reminds me of an olde songe – from mudcat.org
    THE JONES BOY
    Manny Kurtz/Victor Mizzy
    As sung by the Mills Brothers with Sy Oliver and his Orchestra, Decca 28945, circa 1953?
    The whole town’s talkin’ about the Jones boy,
    The Jones boy, the Jones boy.
    The whole town’s talkin’ about the Jones boy.
    He acts mighty peculiar now.

    The whole town’s sayin’ he was a good boy,
    A nice boy, a swell boy.
    The whole town’s sayin’ he’s not a well boy.
    He just isn’t the same somehow.

    I hope he does keep his standing – I thought he would be a swell boy and be in the new Labour lineup when they (whoever?) get stuck in and do it.

    • Sam Hall 12.1
      23 May 2012 at 11:44 am

      If ever their was a man likely to perpetuate the cultural practice of “consuming” your mana, it is this man, and that Solomon

  13. Enough is Enough 13
    23 May 2012 at 11:47 am

    This is bad and Shearer should be front footing it rather than defending Jones.

    Saying Jones followed due process is missing the point. The Nats followed due process with Crafar. It was the wrong decision there and one they will thrown out of office for.

    Labour could get on the absolute moral high ground here and contrast themselves with Key/Banks. Instead they are using the same defensive techniques which makes the ‘scandal’ drag on.

    Losing Jones would be no loss to the labour movement. Kick him to the curb, show we are above the Nats dodge and run tactics and kill the story.

    Did the party, and some commentators from here learn, nothing with Peters the saga? Perception carries weight in politics. Learn that fundamental lesson please.

  14. Blue 14
    23 May 2012 at 12:02 pm

    As I understand it, the facts on the table when Shane Jones made his decision were thus:

    The guy in question looked pretty dodgy, but all the allegations against him were unproven. There were strong official submissions that the man was likely to be tortured and killed if he was returned to China, and he had a wife and kids.

    Shane Jones decided to err on the side of humanity because of the lack of evidence.

    The only reason I can see that this has become an issue is because someone alleged that Jones made the decision overnight (whereas he claims he had the file for a month before making the decision) and that the guy gave money to Labour (and there is no evidence that Shane Jones knew anything about that). And because it’s Shane Jones and he will never live down the porn movie expenses bill. Easy to make him look dodgy.

    As far as I can see, Shane Jones has no case to answer.

    • tsmithfield 14.1
      23 May 2012 at 12:05 pm

      But didn’t he already have residency which entitled him to stay anyway? Why would granting citizenship be necessary to achieve this goal? Surely amnesty would have been the way to go if that was a concern.

      • tsmithfield 14.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 12:09 pm

        I meant asylum above, not amnesty, but can’t edit my comments for some reason.

        As I said above, I don’t necessarily believe that Jones has acted improperly, but that he and other MP’s may well have been spun a line by individuals lower down in the food chain.

        Afterall, as I commented earlier, it doesn’t look like Yan was particularly worried about going back to China because, according to him, he was planning a trip back there.

  15. gareth 15
    23 May 2012 at 12:12 pm

    I may well have this wrong but….
    Banks is in the gun for not declaring his donations, not lobbying govt officials in an attempt to get Dotcom residency/citizenship/permission to buy the mansion. It seems there was enough murk surrounding him that Simon Power? refused to sign off.

    Jones signed off on a guy that is seemingly just as murky as Dotcom after been lobbied by people with connections to himself namely Dover Samuels and Shane Te Pou. It appears that they received considerable sums of money to ‘grease the wheels’
    Now that’s not a lot different to how immigration consultants work. Some of which are former govt officials who know how the system works.

    So the only thing I can see that’s happened is Shane Jones has allowed his judgement to be clouded by his associates who were beneficiaries of Yong Ming Yans generosity. Not illegal but it does have a whiff off citizenship for sale….

    • tsmithfield 15.1
      23 May 2012 at 12:20 pm

      I was right in my comment above:

      Yan already had permanent residency. So why did he need citizenship to protect him from the nefarious Chinese? It wasn’t like he was going to get shipped back or anything. So what Jones says doesn’t add up.

      And what was with the citizenship ceremony that was held at the request of Dover Samuels? Is that normal for people who get citizenship?

      • TheContrarian 15.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 12:33 pm

        My wife is from South Africa and her brother recently got citizenship – no party with Labour for him. 

        • Jackal 15.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 2:03 pm

          You mean he didn’t attend the ceremony (party) given to all successful applicants? According to the rules, you have to swear to obey the laws of New Zealand etc before you can become a citizen. I guess your brother in law isn’t a real New Zealand citizen then The Comedian. Lol!

        • Adolph Koshler 15.1.1.2
          23 May 2012 at 7:29 pm

          To get a party with one of the Political party’s you have to donate significant donations to their cause.

    • Pascal's bookie 15.2
      23 May 2012 at 12:25 pm

      Not illegal but it does have a whiff off citizenship for sale….

      If you like that you also might like our immigration policy.

  16. David C 16
    23 May 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Fron Stuff..

    “Mr Jones admitted he knew there were questions about Yan’s identity. “I certainly know that there was a live issue as to whether or not this man is who he says he was … there was always a mystery … Those were allegations.”

    So Jones signs off on it within a day, no questions asked.

    Jones is fucked.

    • Ross 16.1
      23 May 2012 at 1:27 pm

      Jones was apparently given the file on July 14 and citizenship approved on August 6. By my calculations, that is more than one day.

      http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/news/shane-jones-has-leaders-support/1388850/

      • David C 16.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 1:38 pm

        According to the Dom Post…

        “According to evidence presented to the High Court in Auckland last week, Mr Jones was told in 2008 that Yan was the subject of Interpol Red Notices based on arrest warrants issued in China and that the Internal Affairs Department did not know who he was because he had two passports, two names and two birth dates. Yet Mr Jones approved his application one day after receiving his file.”

        • TheContrarian 16.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 1:42 pm

          Fact is it shouldn’t have been approved – one day or not.

          • David C 16.1.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 1:58 pm

            So when Geoff May, Secretary for Internal Affairs, reccomends that the application be declined, as he does not meet the good character test, based on the facts that the applicant runs under 3 different names and passports, is subject to an interpol red notice and arrest warrant, is accused of fraud for 10,000,000 RNB in China and is currently being invesigated for NZ immigration fraud these things shouldnt have made Jones go ummmmm….

            But nah, Dover said he is a good bastard so I will sign off on it!

            • Jackal 16.1.1.1.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 2:11 pm

              Funny! I can’t seem to find a quote by Jones saying Yan is a “good bastard”. You wouldn’t be making stuff up now would you David C? Jones did say that he made the decision on humanitarian grounds… you know, the bit where an Internal Affairs official told him that Yan would be arrested, convicted, executed, and his organs harvested if he was sent back to China.

              • David C …
                23 May 2012 at 2:16 pm

                Jackal, would you like to show me a shred of proof of this claim?

                “the bit where an Internal Affairs official told him that Yan would be arrested, convicted, executed, and his organs harvested if he was sent back to China.”

                because I think it is total utter bullshit.

                • Jackal …
                  23 May 2012 at 2:23 pm

                  The note hasn’t been released to the public yet… so your question is a straw-man. Clearly what Jones has said is infinitely more believable than what you’re reporting he said David C. Good bastard… Don’t make me laugh!

                  • David C …
                    23 May 2012 at 2:42 pm

                    so did Internal Affairs “tell him” or was there a note? which one?
                    any such note certanly wasnt attached to the recomendation to decline along with all the other relevant documents, which it would have been if it existed, which it doesnt.

                    No one was trying to send him back and even if the Chinese did ask for him we would have gotten an assurance that the death denalty would not be applied.

                    as I said, total utter bullshit.

                    • Jackal …
                      23 May 2012 at 2:59 pm

                      The old absence of proof categorically means it doesn’t exist trick… come on David C, this is not preschool… and what are you asking me straw-men questions for that I cannot possibly answer? You know what is really balderdash around here, is all your speculation based on nothing but imagination.

                    • David C …
                      23 May 2012 at 4:21 pm

                      Jackal, the report from Internal Affairs specifically adresses the (lack of) humanitarian grounds to grant citizenship and recomends to decline.

                      So once again I say, its total utter bullshit.

                    • Jackal …
                      23 May 2012 at 4:57 pm

                      What? It was recommended that he be declined for not meeting the Good Character as defined by section 8 (1)(c) of the Citizens Act 1977 (PDF) assessment because of the allegations made by the Chinese government.

                      Keep in mind that China is a country where thousands of people go missing every year and the justice system is very harsh. Yan has no convictions btw and it’s likely he did have grounds to fear for his life.

                      Internal Affairs did not consider humanitarian grounds in declining his application at all, while Jones did when he approved it. So WTF David C?

              • David C …
                23 May 2012 at 2:18 pm

                http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jonesfile.pdf

                The papers that show the recomendation to decline.

                • Bored …
                  23 May 2012 at 3:08 pm

                  How interesting Dave C. Had a good read. Now read this re Chinese capital crimes.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

                  So reading the document it appears clear that by the letter of the regulations Yan was ineligible for residency UNLESS over ruled by the Minister at his discretion.

                  There are three letters attached, two from fellow Labour MPs and one from a National MP stating that they think the man should stay as he has demonstrated good nature and good deeds within his community.

                  Put yourself in Jones shoes: you know about the Chinese legal system and penalties. You have letters from three MPs supporting Yan. And you are aware that if Mr Yan gets shot you are going to get scrutinised big time. Might you err toward caution? Might you also not want to have blood on your hands? Might you not consider the impact upon the Chinese business community and their willingness to invest in NZ?

                  I reckon Jones was in a no win position and did what he thought best. For that National and its trolls are running a witch hunt as smoke screen for the criminal activities of John Banks because to enable the larcenous rort of NZs assets Key needs his vote.

                  • David C …
                    23 May 2012 at 3:30 pm

                    Bored, you totally lost me.

                    He already had permanant residency, he had been here since 2001.

                    What he did not have was a NZ passport.
                    Why did he get one? given that he is clearly unfit.

                    • David C …
                      23 May 2012 at 3:34 pm

                      and nah no smoke screen to save Banks. He is a short arsed dickhead I hope he gets the arse.

                      There is however a witchhunt to get rid of Jones 🙂 and he will take Shearer with him.

                      and when Crusher kicks Chicken Littles and Yellow Ducks arses that will be 4 gone for good.

                      Yippeee !

                    • Jackal …
                      23 May 2012 at 3:40 pm

                      Your imagination is getting the better of you again David C.

                    • Bored …
                      23 May 2012 at 3:46 pm

                      Go back to school and do some English comprehension.

                    • felix …
                      23 May 2012 at 3:52 pm

                      Lolz if there’s no smokescreen then why would tsmithfield be posting all day on it? He only ever turns up when the govt need some covering fire.

                    • Adolph Koshler …
                      23 May 2012 at 8:26 pm

                      We know why he got a passport. Because Jones took notes, lots and lots of notes. They all had famous kiwi faces on them.

              • Inventory2 …
                23 May 2012 at 7:54 pm

                Did the Internal Affairs official tell Jones that Jackal, or did the IA official tell Jones that Liu had said that? There’s a whole world of difference.

                But it ought not have mattered anyway, as Liu was already a NZ permanent resident, so the question of him being deported to China hadn’t even eventuated.

              • David C …
                23 May 2012 at 9:03 pm

                Jackal, you should read what I actually wrote.

                but Dover didnt say “he is a good bastard” (I was paraphrasing somewhat) but he did actually say” He is a bloody good bloke”

            • Ross 16.1.1.1.1.2
              23 May 2012 at 4:05 pm

              I prefer that Ministers make their own decisions rather than leave it to unelected officials. I don’t recall voting for Geoff May. Or are you suggesting that we should get rid of every MP and leave it to officials to implement policy?

              • David C …
                23 May 2012 at 9:08 pm

                Ross, you think an MP has the time to do a due and dilligant investigation of his/her own into every trivial thing? ever heard of deligation? isnt that why we have staff? to do stuff for us? write reports, sumarise and recomend?

                and IF Jones has weighty evidence that goes agaisnt the Ministrys recomendation where the fuck is it?

  17. Adrian 17
    23 May 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Is’nt Yan’s wife and children NZ’ers ? Can you imagine the shitfight now if he was sent back, and shot because he fucked off someone like.. oh,say, one of those Chinese Government arseholes who is trying really hard to disguise exactly who is buying up stuff like the Crafer farms?
    And who in the ministry is spreading the lie about the “one day” thing? Somebody who owes more to Chinese Govt pressure than to his/her own country?

    • TheContrarian 17.1
      23 May 2012 at 1:50 pm

      “Can you imagine the shitfight now if he was sent back, and shot because he fucked off someone like.. oh,say, one of those Chinese Government arseholes who is trying really hard to disguise exactly who is buying up stuff like the Crafer farms?”

      You mean one of those people in China he defrauded for millions of dollars? And do you think a guy worried about being shot in China would plainly speak about going back to China? No, no, this whole getting shot in China thing is a red herring

  18. r0b 18
    23 May 2012 at 2:00 pm

    See update added to the post.

    • Chris 18.1
      23 May 2012 at 2:05 pm

      That doesn’t answer the part about how he was already allowed to stay in NZ as a permenant resident. Why did he need citizenship to protect him from the death penalty?

      • happynz 18.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 4:13 pm

        OK, just thinking out loud here…Yes, even if he had permanent residency he was still a Chinese citizen. As China does not recognise dual nationality, upon taking the oath of New Zealand citizenship he in effect renounced his Chinese citizenship, thus giving him more security of a sort being here in New Zealand as a citizen rather than a permanent resident.

        • Chris 18.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 4:54 pm

          Security from what? It’s already been shown we don’t extradite anyone if they will be executed.

          • Pascal's bookie 18.1.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 5:11 pm

            Just asking, but seeing this seems to be such an important point, what protection does permanent residency actually confer? same as citizenship? or quite a bit less?

            Weren’t immigration digging to see if they could chuck him out?

            • Chris 18.1.1.1.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 7:06 pm

              From the links provided above NZ will not extradite any person if they have or may be sentenced to death – this includes anyone not just citizens (citizens are specifically mentioned for other things). So no extra protection

              • Pascal's bookie …
                23 May 2012 at 7:20 pm

                Yeah, I get that. But extradition isn’t what I’m wondering about. Immigration were looking into him weren’t they?

                Didn’t Cunliffe tell them to’ keep digging’ or some such, because they hadn’t come up with enough for him to revoke residency or whatever?

                • Andrew Geddis …
                  23 May 2012 at 7:29 pm

                  If the fear genuinely was that his residency was going to be removed (and hence his right to stay in NZ ended), then it seems a bit odd to upgrade his status to full citizen.
                  I mean, how would that be justified? “There is a risk we might decide you are not deserving of permanent residence and so get deported back to China … so I’ll say you are deserving enough to be a full citizen of the country.” A bit odd, no?

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    23 May 2012 at 7:47 pm

                    Yeah, it’s odd, & am not trying to defend Jones from, whatever it is people are not quite getting around alledging he did, I’m just wondering if permanent residency isn’t the same thing as citizenship, which is what people seem to be saying. So there might well have been reasons he’d want the latter.

                    • Andrew Geddis …
                      23 May 2012 at 8:25 pm

                      Oh, I’m sure there are reasons why he (Yan) would want citizenship in NZ – the passport is nice, etc. The question is, why would Jones want to give it to him? And the argument “to save him being kicked out of NZ to face a grisly death in China” just doesn’t seem a very good one … as lots of people have said, permanent residency already means you can’t be “kicked out”, and the avenue for avoiding deportation if that residency is revoked (for any reason) is asylum – not citizenship. So – yeah … something doesn’t match up.

                      That said, maybe Jones really just thought that the Immigration officials were being pricks to Yan and, rather than leave him at their (perceived) mercy, decided to take him out of their hands. But even if this was the case, I don’t think that’s an excuse Jones could put up … “I let Mr Yan stay to show those pesky officials who really runs things round here” … because it turned out to be a pretty bad call (and hence would make his judgment look pretty weak).

    • TheContrarian 18.2
      23 May 2012 at 2:05 pm

      But didn’t he also say he was going back to China himself? Seems somebody has got something wrong somewhere 

    • David C 18.3
      23 May 2012 at 2:07 pm

      yeah r0b? so what?

      Who was trying to throw him out? he had been in the country since 2001 (apart from when he was flitting back and forth to China to do deals)

      • Jackal 18.3.1
        23 May 2012 at 2:37 pm

        What are you guys whinging at r0b for?

        Chris: Somebody is liable for deportation if their refugee and/or protection status is cancelled. Gaining New Zealand citizenship would have stopped this from occurring.

        TheContrarian: There appears to be a big difference between what Yan told officials on various occasions… hence the trial.

        David C: Being that People who are found to have committed immigration fraud can become liable for deportation, the real question is will he be sent back to China if there’s any chance that he will be killed?

        • KJT 18.3.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 2:59 pm

          Apart from anything else, I do not think we should be extraditing people to anywhere they are risking torture, kangaroo courts or the death penalty.

          Straight out human rights issue.

          • tsmithfield 18.3.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 3:06 pm

            He was a permanent resident prior to getting citizenship. The only way he could get back to China was by buying a ticket and heading back by his own free choice.

        • David C 18.3.1.2
          23 May 2012 at 3:02 pm

          well given that he was trying to board a plane out of the country when he was arrested he seems to lack any fear of going back home huh?

        • Chris 18.3.1.3
          23 May 2012 at 3:11 pm

          Except if there was a reasonable suspicion that he would be put to death we would not have deported/extradited him as shown by the links from NRT.

          Citizenship didn’t change anything in this regard.

  19. David C 19
    23 May 2012 at 2:14 pm

    and since he was accused of fraud in China (for quite a sum) shouldnt we have been putting him on a plane to face a court? (after assuranced of no death penalty of course)

    But no…Jones just gives it the big tick.

  20. Fortran 20
    23 May 2012 at 2:15 pm

    An independant (Non Political) enquiry is required as there is a nasty smell around this.
    A QC or similar could be appointed.
    The smell has to be disbursed asap otherwise it will permeate and get stronger.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 20.1
      23 May 2012 at 2:21 pm

      Police complaint still not forthcoming from the chorous of whingers.

      Police investigations still ongoing into John Banks.

      Piss-weak attempt at diversion much?

      • TheContrarian 20.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 2:26 pm

        What does Banks have to do with this? This is about Shane Jones, not Banks. 

        • Kotahi Tane Huna 20.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 2:46 pm

          Do you believe that? How delightfully naive.

          • TheContrarian 20.1.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 2:49 pm

            Your comment implies people on this page, which included me, were trying to divert from Banks. No one is discussing Banks and I for one hope Banks is tossed from parliament. 

        • Jackal 20.1.1.2
          23 May 2012 at 2:48 pm

          Sheesh! John Key made it about John Banks by calling Shearer a hypocrite for not standing Jones down. Do you need everything explained to you The Doctrinarian?

      • Inventory2 20.1.2
        23 May 2012 at 7:56 pm

        Police investigations are still ongoing for Labour Justice spokesman Charles Chauvel as well. Should HE be stood down too? After all, the allegation against him is a breach of the Electoral Act, and that’s right in the ballpark of the Justice spokesman.

        • felix 20.1.2.1
          23 May 2012 at 8:05 pm

          According to John Key police investigations don’t carry much weight. Don’t think he’s ever stood someone down due to a police investigation, has he?

          I imagine he could always just get another policeman to give him an alternate summary of facts anyhow.

          • Inventory2 20.1.2.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 8:48 pm

            Richard Worth?

            • Pascal's bookie 20.1.2.1.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 9:00 pm

              Nope. Worth was stood down for literally unspeakable acts. Key wouldn’t tell us what vile deed led to him losing confidence in Worth, but I seem to recall him saying it wasn’t the police investigation.

            • felix 20.1.2.1.1.2
              23 May 2012 at 9:07 pm

              Nope. Key refuses to say why he sacked Worth.

  21. gobsmacked 21
    23 May 2012 at 2:50 pm

    I suspect Jones fronted up to the media yesterday after holding his head in his hands while he listened to David Shearer bumbling his way through Jones’ defence in various interviews on Monday (some online now I think – Checkpoint, Newstalk ZB, Radio Live etc).

    The original strategy was correct: it’s a case before the courts, await the verdict, then Jones answers all questions. Fair enough.

    Unfortunately Jones’ leader only made matters worse, giving a half-baked defence (“you’ll have to ask Shane about that” – so naturally the media did).

    Jones can explain himself well enough. His leader can’t. That’s Labour’s problem, right there.

    • tsmithfield 21.1
      23 May 2012 at 3:03 pm

      He hasn’t explained himself though. As has been pointed out by a number of contributors above, the humanitarian explanation was a load of crock.

      Jones explanation suggests that if he hadn’t approved citizenship then Yan would have been shipped back to China for execution and organ extraction. However, Yan already had permanent residency, so there was no possibility of extradition back to China in any event. So there was no humanitarian reason for Jones to approve residency.

  22. Bored 22
    23 May 2012 at 3:14 pm

    TS you really are a Nact troll running a witch hunt as smoke screen for the criminal activities of John Banks whose vote is needed to enable the larcenous rort of NZs assets by Key. Worse you have no compassion, given the chance you would present the man as donated organs. Or maybe not, its too easy to hold the gun, I doubt if you would have the guts to pull the trigger.

    • TheContrarian 22.1
      23 May 2012 at 3:28 pm

      That’s pretty cool Bored. Expect that it has been pointed out several times that the humanitarian example is decidedly fishy and it is pretty convenient for someone to cry humanitarian grounds to avoid having to face charges of fraud in a foreign country.

      Which you accept a murderer into NZ who might face the chair in Texas (hyperbolic I know)   

      • tsmithfield 22.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 3:32 pm

        Yeah, stop being such a drama queen, Bored. If Jones was motivated by humanitarian concerns, the only decision he needed to make was not to revoke residency. There was absolutely no need to approve citizenship. The explanation that Jones has given is BS, pure and simple.

      • KJT 22.1.2
        23 May 2012 at 3:51 pm

        As the innocence project in the States showed, most of the black men facing the chair in Texas were probably wrongfully convicted. So. Yes.

  23. captain hook 23
    23 May 2012 at 3:39 pm

    Shane Jones may not be an oily greasy national party type poltician but he is a real man.
    Not some sort of sleazy smarmy creep that the national party specialises in.

    • higherstandard 23.1
      23 May 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Outstanding parody post.

    • Inverness 23.2
      23 May 2012 at 5:13 pm

      Sleazy smarmy creep?
      You mean the type who while on the taxpayer pay roll uses tax payer money to fund his jackoff movies?

      thats not sleazy at all , certainly from a lefties point of view

    • Adolph Koshler 23.3
      23 May 2012 at 9:38 pm

      Do you mean a real man watches porn while god knows what else on public Government business, using taxpayers money and then take bribes all the while negating the advice of the professional non political government immigration departmental professionals.

      You sir and I have a different opinion of a Real man.

      • Pascal's bookie 23.3.1
        23 May 2012 at 9:43 pm

        “takes bribes” Gosh, another one that’ll be on the phone to the police I’d imagine.

  24. felix 24
    23 May 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Why would anyone want to defend Shane Jones and John Banks?

  25. captain hook 25
    23 May 2012 at 4:42 pm

    peace on you bro!

  26. We Live in Hope 26
    23 May 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Labour need this like a hole in the head right now. Is this Jones saga going to overshadow the Budget announcement and divert the media’s limited attention away from critical debates that are needed on areas of cuts to education, health etc.

  27. Pascal's bookie 27
    23 May 2012 at 5:13 pm

    Well he’s been stood down anyway.

    So hopefully now the AG is investigating, after someone finally got around to asking, we’ll find out what the hell is going on without all the political smake and mirrors and PMs calling people hypocrits and whatnot.

    • Carol 27.1
      23 May 2012 at 5:22 pm

      Shearer will be on CheckPoint, RNZ just after 5.30pm.

      Good move by Shearer. Key still hasn’t stood down Banks from the cabinet.

      • gobsmacked 27.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 5:27 pm

        He was on Checkpoint on Monday explaining why he HADN’T stood Jones down.

        FFS, it’s Politics 101. Work out where it’s going, then do it. Or don’t do it. But either way, don’t give your opponents a free hit for three days.

        • gobsmacked 27.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 5:43 pm

          Heard today’s interview just now. Mary Wilson had him for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

          Shearer hasn’t got it, and so we just have to sit and wait for months while Labour work that out. Christ.

  28. Jackal 28
    23 May 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Shane Jones stood down

    Labour have called in the auditor general to investigate in the Bill Liu case and stood MP Shane Jones down.

    Jones knew there were serious questions over the true identity of Chinese millionaire Yong Ming Yan, also known as Bill Liu, when he gave him a New Zealand passport.

    The news of Jones’ stand down came late this afternoon.

  29. gobsmacked 29
    23 May 2012 at 5:23 pm

    The political advantage in standing Jones down was there for the taking, a few days ago.

    There’s not much to be had now. Seriously, who’s running this show?

  30. Barry 30
    23 May 2012 at 5:32 pm

    I was giving Shane Jones the benefit of the doubt until he opened his mouth.

    He was not asking for asylum. Fear of persecution or execution is not grounds for giving citizenship, nor is it a reason for ignoring criminality in decision making.

    If Jones is telling the truth then he was conned big time.

    Please let’s have an investigation. It has to be a government initiated report from a QC or some other independent party. I agree with Shearer that there is no reason to damn Jones yet, but he needs to get it all out in the public and then cut him loose if it is warranted.

  31. ianmac 31
    23 May 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Labour Party leader David Shearer has asked the Auditor General to investigate Shane Jones’ handling of the citizenship application of Chinese businessman William Yan in 2008 and stood him down while the inquiry takes place.

    In the Herald just now.
    A great move as it puts Key/Banks back on the spot.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10807904

    • sweetd 31.1
      23 May 2012 at 6:26 pm

      The AG request is to look at the process, not the decision. Its the inquiry you have when you don’t want an inquiry.

      • Pascal's bookie 31.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 6:43 pm

        maybe someone should seek to broaden the enquiry then.

        What’s stopping them?

        I’m keen to get to the bottom of it all.

        Where’s the government?

        Can’t they launch an enquiry of some sort?

    • Herodotus 31.2
      23 May 2012 at 6:59 pm

      ianmac disagree- all it does is display that Shearer has changed his opinion based on public perception. Nothing has changed from when Shearer went eye to eye with Jones and got his assurances.
      As time goes one more questions are raised than answered. For me what official said “Mr Jones says he was told that Mr Yan would be “jailed, executed and his organs harvested” if he was sent back to China.”
      “That to me comprised grounds for a humanitarian decision,” Mr Jones says.(Sourced from The Jackal)
      So what was this danger, and if so why was it reported -“He (Yan) said he had a lot of support from members of Parliament … He was going to take them to China.”
      Not the actions you would think was appropriate if your body parts were wanted by the Chinese govt?
      Another case of a side show distraction conceived by labour and mismanaged by a changing their position when National are exposed (This time re the Budget).

    • Adolph Koshler 31.3
      23 May 2012 at 7:53 pm

      Hoooray, That makes corruption go away. Lets all hide our head in the sand, it never happend.

      I hope Shearer is being honest here and not playing silly games. An investigation needs to begin now to find out who is involved.

  32. Vicky32 32
    23 May 2012 at 5:59 pm

    <bookmarking>

  33. David C 33
    23 May 2012 at 6:13 pm

    Well Shearer gets one point for integrity, one more than Helen ever got.

    • David C 33.1
      23 May 2012 at 6:26 pm

      Silent T has cut Jones adrift!

      “I’m not aware of the grounds Mr Jones considered,” he says. “That’s a matter for Mr Jones.”

      tooo funny.

  34. Roflcopter 34
    23 May 2012 at 6:34 pm

    The terms of reference Shearer is talking about are a crock of shit.

    Noone is debating the process, I’m sure he followed it 100%. The issue is the murkiness surrounding the decision to go against all advice and grant Liu citizenship.

    All Labour are doing is dragging out the inevitable to try and hide a few other skeletons in the closet in this whole affair.

    Go right ahead, and make sure you’ve got plenty of popcorn handy, coz this is bound to get better.

    • tsmithfield 34.1
      23 May 2012 at 6:38 pm

      I agree. It also allows them to shut down questions on the issue on the basis that “the auditor general is inquiring into it”.

      However, I disagree on the issue of process, because I think Jones might well come unstuck there.

      If the only reason he approved citizenship was due to his humanitarian concerns about Yan or whatever his name is, being shipped back to China, executed and harvested for organs, then all Jones needed to do was to continue his residency status. There was no need whatsoever to take the extra step of approving citizenship. I am sure the auditor general will grasp this in an instant.

      • Inventory2 34.1.1
        23 May 2012 at 7:59 pm

        Absolutely right tsmithfield. Yan/Liu was already a permanent resident of NZ, and would have to have had his residence revoked and be served with a Removal Order before shipping him back to China would even have been contemplated.

        • felix 34.1.1.1
          23 May 2012 at 8:08 pm

          What exactly stands in the way of having one’s residence revoked?

          • Inventory2 34.1.1.1.1
            23 May 2012 at 8:22 pm

            Lengthy court proceedings Felix. By the time the revokation and the Removal Order were contested, appealed then appealed to a higher court, it would be easy to see several years pass by.

            • felix 34.1.1.1.1.1
              23 May 2012 at 8:52 pm

              So time.

              But apart from the time it takes, what actually materially stops one’s residency being revoked?

          • David C 34.1.1.1.2
            23 May 2012 at 8:26 pm

            well felix, it looks like a fundraiser or two and a contribution to an MP or two will stand in the way of having residency revoked.

          • tsmithfield 34.1.1.1.3
            23 May 2012 at 8:29 pm

            A quite acceptable way for Jones to have handled it would be to have made a decision along the lines of:

            1. There are a number of aspects to this application that concern me sufficiently so as not to approve citizenship.
            2. On the other hand, I am concerned about issues raised about Yan’s safety should he be deported to China should his residency be revoked.
            3. Therefore my decision is to decline citizenship at this stage, but to also indicate that no application to revoke residency will be considered until I am satisfied that Yan will be safe should he be deported to China.

      • twisted hive 34.1.2
        23 May 2012 at 8:11 pm

        You’re right tsmithfield in that it allows Shearer to shut down questions about Jones.

        But it also opens Shearer himself right up for questions.

        What did he know when?
        Why didn’t he stand Jones earlier?
        What specific information caused him to elevate the problem to the AG?
        Isn’t the AG move an admission of failure of his own leadership skills?

        On top of that, you’ve got to wonder what Labour were thinking handing the government a dead fish to slap them around with – an admission, or at least perception of admission, of serious misconduct – the day before the budget?

  35. Adolph Koshler 35
    23 May 2012 at 7:32 pm

    This selling citizenship for cash is disgraceful we are now no different than third world countries where backhanders and payoffs are compulsory.

    No wonder people are taking off overseas. What happened to the honest Kiwi! Very sad indeed.

  36. Adolph Koshler 36
    23 May 2012 at 8:35 pm

    Good old Rick Barker is a good mate eh! Passed it on to Shane Jones to do the dodgy work, apparently he knew this guy too well. He must be laughing all the way to the bank. I think there are quite a few mixed up in this corruption.

    The truth needs to come out.

  37. Hulun Phallis 37
    23 May 2012 at 8:38 pm

    IrishBill: Banned for good for being a dullard.

    • prism 37.1
      23 May 2012 at 8:44 pm

      What a strange pseudonym. What does it mean? Are you a conspiracy theorist? Questions probably without answers.

      [lprent: I means that one of my unfavorite trolls has escaped into the site. I will hunt him down later and eject him back to his lonely self-abuse. Looks like Irish already killed the comment. I’ll add his portal to the bans. ]

    • Pascal's bookie 37.2
      23 May 2012 at 8:58 pm

      haha—>” treason”.

      Good one.

      Obviously, as a patriot, you’ll be doing something about that right?

      What sort of person would suspect treason and not go the police, at the very least?

  38. Georgecom 38
    23 May 2012 at 8:58 pm

    Shearer called for Banks to be stood down and investigated.
    Key refused.
    The jones issue blew up.
    Shearer said he backed the process Jones took, if not the decision made.
    Key said it was a hypocritical position.
    Shearer has now stood Jones down and called for an investigation.

    Question: Will Mister Key do the same with John Banks?

    hypocrisy?

    • Pascal's bookie 38.1
      23 May 2012 at 9:02 pm

      Scott Yorke has highlighted how similar the cases are:

      http://www.imperatorfish.com/2012/05/yes-this-is-just-same.html

    • David C 38.2
      23 May 2012 at 9:21 pm

      hypocricy? nope not a bit.

      Banks was a private indivual that did some advocacy on behalf of Dotcom. Banks had no power over the outcome.
      Jones was a Minister and made a bizzzare call to grant a person accused of fraud in 2 countries citizenship after a letter from his mate Dover. How much $$ was paid is unclear.

      Feild is doing time for the same thing isnt he?

      • mickysavage 38.2.1
        23 May 2012 at 9:51 pm

        What difference is there that Banks was a “private individual”?  And in any event wasn’t he the Mayor of Auckland at the time?

      • Georgecom 38.2.2
        24 May 2012 at 12:27 pm

        Shearer called for Banks to be stood down and investigated.
        Key refused.
        The jones issue blew up.
        Shearer said he backed the process Jones took, if not the decision made.
        Key said it was a hypocritical position.
        Shearer has now stood Jones down and called for an investigation.

        Question: Will Mister Key do the same with John Banks?

  39. David C 39
    23 May 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Three months later, bank accounts he held in Australia were frozen and in June 2007, $4m was sent to the Chinese Government. Yan was not convicted of any offence – he agreed to the repatriation without an admission of liability – but allegations swirling around him were so serious immigration officials suggested his permanent residency be revoked.

    It just gets better….

  40. Adolph Koshler 40
    23 May 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Who was the Labour party fundraiser at the time, they must know where all this money was coming from?

  41. mickysavage 41
    23 May 2012 at 9:48 pm

    Gee the right wingers are like pigs in muck over this.  I look forward to them enjoying the Banks scandal that is brewing away ready to erupt …

  42. Jester 42
    24 May 2012 at 12:40 am

    “… Under those circumstances there’s a clear humanitarian case. So clear, in fact, that it would be unlawful to remove Liu from the country. We don’t extradite people to execution. We don’t deport them to it either. Any Minister in Jones’ position would have made exactly the same decision. And if not, the courts would have made it for them.”

    Um, we may need to rethink that train of thought.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/343543/Christian-refugee-sent-back-to-Iran

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/north-shore-times/351966/Torture-possible-in-Iran

  43. Adam 43
    24 May 2012 at 1:24 am

    Since when have contributors to this site had such faith in the veracity of officials? These guys are standing on their hind legs in court making statements about what Liu/Yan said to them four years ago (which they didn’t think to minute at the time or hand over to the defence during discovery). They are making allegations about the conduct of a former minister who has not been called as a defendant or a witness, which on simple factual matters like timing turn out to be bollocks. And they have been leaking to Wishart from day one in an effort to pressure/punish said minister. And the Chinese have failed to pursue this supposed major fraud case. Don’t you think something fails the sniff test?

  44. chris73 44
    24 May 2012 at 6:53 am

    Move along, nothing to see here, he was just guilty of being helpful etc etc