Moira Coatsworth, Labour party president, has just put out a statement saying that one of the alleged fundraisers was:
The Herald on Sunday have, however, disclosed to us that Donghua Liu’s statement claims the fundraiser was held on 3 June 2007. We have found no record of any fundraiser held on that date.
Ok, so some part of the Labour party had a fund-raiser on the Sunday in the middle of Queens Birthday weekend?
What are those munters pretending to be journalists at the Herald on? Haven’t they looked at a calendar for 2007? The 4th is Queens birthday. The third is a Sunday.
Absolutely no-one schedules fund-raisers for the Labour party in middle of a long weekend. That is because no-one will turn up. No-one typically schedules anything for Sunday either. That is because it is the day that MP’s usually spend with their families.
This is surely obvious even to some dumbarse journos?
But at least anyone who was at this mythic fundraiser will certainly remember it
Updated: The latest explanation from the NZ Herald reads
The statement from Liu said the $100,000 bottle was purchased at a fundraiser on “3-6-2007”. A Labour press statement said no fundraiser was held on June 3, 2007, but the date could be read as March 6, 2007.
This seems unlikely. That date would be in American notation. However China commonly uses the military format of yyyy-mm-dd.
As irascible says in comments. March 6th 2007 was a Tuesday which is also unlikely for a fund raiser. Fundraisers inside Labour are invariably held on Friday evenings or Saturdays because those are the best days to get large numbers of people attending.
On the subject of what is increasingly appearing to be the mythic “close to $100,000” wine purchase.
Liu said he paid “close to $100,000” for the prize, according to a signed statement dated May 3, a price tag Mr Barker called “an extraordinary and eye-watering amount, one that I would recall if it happened and I don’t”.
Mr Barker, who was Minister of Internal Affairs at the time, added: “Had $100,000 been paid for a bottle of wine at a fundraiser that I was not at, I am certain I would have been told about it and I haven’t. That figure for one item is considerably more than most fundraisers got in total.”
Mr Barker said he handed over a bottle of wine at a number of Labour fundraisers.
“I can say [the one handed to Ms Zhang] wasn’t a $100,000 bottle.”
Which is what people from Labour have been saying ever since the NZ Herald released this story. It is barely possible that $15,000 could have been paid at an auction without it being widely known amongst Labour activists and MPs. More information about the date and location would be required to pin it down amongst the large numbers of fund-raisers that happen inside of Labour.
But like Rick Barker, I’m incredulous that anyone can think that a $100,000 wasn’t the talk inside Labour in 2007. It is unheard of for such amounts to be made. We were gossiping when auction sales got over a thousand dollars.
Sure this might have happened in National – like John Key’s $50,000 tie. But like that, it would have been widely known and discussed in 2007 including in public.
Mr Liu has said
Liu said he would not make any further comments about political donations or swear an affidavit outlining dollar amounts.
“It’s important to remember that over the years I’ve given equally to governments of both colours.”
Which then leads to the question – why hasn’t the NZ Herald brought out information about the Liu donations to National? Perhaps they are as mythic as the ones to Labour? Or the NZ Heralds sources are inside National?
At this point I’d have to say that the NZ Herald investigations team looks about as credible as Mr Liu.
Updated: Just been listening to Tim Murphy on Morning Report.
There are three things that stand out for me in this.
- Tim Murphy seems to not understand the difference between a signed statement and a affidavit and appears to wave off the differences between the two. Perhaps he should get a lawyer to explain the difference in the Evidence Act to find out how crucial it is. I find it difficult to believe that an editor of a major news medium is unaware of the difference.
- He said that they received the statement only in the last couple of days and that the source was not Mr Liu (and presumably not his legal representatives). So did this letter appear from the National party dirty tricks team or John Key’s top drawer? I suspect so. They, through their mouthpieces in their mouthpiece blogs at Whaleoil and Kiwiblog, have been the people pushing this mysterious affidavit from Liu line since last week.
- Tim Murphy also said that they were trying to check out the statement and that was why they weren’t releasing it to Labour or into the public. Yet the Herald on Sunday released some of the content of this statement yesterday? Is that responsible journalism?
This whole exercise looks increasingly like a National party smear exercise that the NZ Herald has been going along with – without doing the type of checking that we expect from a responsible “news medium”. Thye look like they are trying to descend to the depths of a smear blog like Whaleoil.
Tim Barnett, Labours current General Secretary, sounds like he is getting the same impression on a later segment on Morning Report.
Statement from Moira Coatsworth, Labour Party President, Donghua Liu reported allegations – summary of facts
Moira should go through all party records and find out if any fundraisers have ever been held during Queens Birthday weekend, or indeed any other long weekend holiday.
If they can come out and say “our records for the past 15 years indicate no fundraisers have ever been held on long weekends”, then it will cast serious doubt on Liu’s statement.
I expect that is exactly what she and the H.O. staff will do Lanthanide. But that is a big job and, as she says in her statement… they were only given the info. yesterday.
Iprent is correct. Party activities including fundraisers are never held on long weekends. I can’t speak for other political parties but long week-ends are sacrosanct in the Labour Party and I shouldn’t have to spell out the reason why…
Fight fire with fire Labour. The National Party and their acolytes have sunk to a brand new low – as if that was possible, but apparently it is.
The Herald is owned by big business corporates ffs, why on earth would you rely on them for anything independent or objective.
The Herald objective and without conflicts of interest? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha what a joke ..
Yes, let’s all dance to the National Party’s cracked record some more! I live to discuss the minutiae of National Party smears, and the best thing is, they’ll never run out of material.
If the writer of these lines has succeeded in providing some material for clarifying these problems, he may regard his labours as not having been fruitless.
Going to take personal responsibility for spreading lies on the Hamstrung post Ronnie? Or don’t you have any?
It’s bizarre that Mr. Liu would make such specific and substantial claims without evidence. Surely if he’s bullshitting, he knows that he would eventually be found out. I seriously hope the Labour party sue him for defamation, if he can’t produce anything to back up his claim. You simply can’t go around making accusations like this!
I wonder if he bought a bottle of wine at a charity auction or something and erroneously thought he was donating to the Labour party? About the only reasonable explanation. He will have a record of this somewhere, bank statements, cheque butt, unless he’s claiming he handing the party a brown paper bag full of cash?
i want an apoligy from the media and a retraction
In the history of modern socialism this is a phenomenon, that the strife of the various trends within the socialist movement has from national become international.
I like your post and your posts on whaleoil,bro.
National and the NZ Herald aren’t socialist.
it would be insane run a fund raiser on a long weekend.your right it never happened and if it did it wasn’t a labour fund raiser i think the Chinaman has been scammed by a imposter may he was sold Auckland harbour bridge as well!
And TV3 News is slanting it to being Labour’s problem, and reporting the allegations strongly, without dirtectly saying the allegations are not supported by any evidence.
One News was more balanced.
TV3 clearly does not want a Labour-led government – ditto the NZ Herald.
Yep contrast these two headlines:
TV3: Liu hits back in donations saga
TVNZ: Labour Party challenging donation accusations
TV3 does not even acknowledge that the veracity of Mr Liu’s evidence is being challenged. It seems like a supreme case of soundbite reporting. There is little or no depth to the analysis.
The amusing thing about your comment Karol is that over at Kiwiblog they think TV3 and the Herald are rat infested Labour strongholds …. as an ex TV News worker it seems to bear out our belief that we were doing our job correctly and despite our unspoken personal beliefs we were doing our job properly with an even handed approach.
Actually, jcuknz, your comment shows exactly what is wrong with the likes of TV3 and the Herald – especially with their editors and managers.
‘We are criticised by both sides” is the lame argument the MSM trots out. It’s totally superficial, and does not show any attempt to look at their productions in any kind of critical depth.
Lynn’s post spells out exactly what is wrong with the media coverage and it pretty much looks like key players in the MSM are all out to ensure the Nats get back into government at the election.
Karol .. I am not disagreeing with you except that I am laughing at both left and right wingers as they namecall the media as favouring their opposition. I guess it is human nature but these days the polarisation seems much worse than it used to be even a year ago when I was reading alternately both KB and The Standard and changed as each in turn seemed to be going over the top. Today both are equally beyond the sensible limits of discussion in their antipathy to the rival party[s], parliamentarians and media.
‘Facts about that mystery $100 000 bottle of wine and standards of Journalism in NZ’
By Martyn Bradbury / June 22, 2014
Is this kind of journalism the standard of 4th estate responsibility a democracy 3 months out from an election demands? This looks like the entire mainstream media have swallowed a manufactured National Party smear and uncritically run it as headlines…..
Wouldn’t it be funny if turns out that Mr Liu had mistaken one of the other far right, neoliberal political parties in NZ for Labour?
“But they are all so alike…”
oh god !it could be united future hehehe it really could
I did a search on Newztext to see what was going on that weekend. It turns out the Greens were holding their conference in Nelson. I couldn’t find any record of a Labour conference or regional meeting from that time, the closest I could find was a regional meeting on 15 May celebrating Labour’s links with Ratana.
The Greens always hold their conferences on long weekends as far as I can tell.
But surely anyone (including journos) will know that Labour doesn’t do squat on long weekends. Speeches for the media maybe. But even then never on a sunday
What was the date of the fundraiser where Liu allegedly purchased wine for $100k ? And where was it held ? These details should be in Liu’s statement so it can be checked out. Very few Labour fundraisers brought in that sort of money – and both LPrent and Anne are correct. Labour just doesn’t hold fundraisers on Long Weekends, on the Friday beforehand, and nor on Sundays – too many people have church obligatins on Sundays.
of course they don’t because i think there serious questions the NZ media need to answer relating to interference in the electoral process an inquiry needs to set up up to get bottom of nationals control of media outlets and the blatant manipulation and lies
Remember though, Cunliffe did do his state of the nation ,kick of the election speech on Auckland anniversary and the same day Lorde was up for a couple of grammys, so don’t rule it out.
Most people with an once of sense would think what a ridiculous time to hold a fund raiser but this is Labour we’re talking about, so anything is possible.
I think you’re clasping at imaginary straws there BM. Mistakes like this are exactly what any judge would consider in making a decision about any defamation claims that should ensue.
If I was Donghua Liu, the PM, certain National MP’s or their media lackey’s I would be a little worried about the burden of proof and exactly what was published.
Funnily enough their fabrications appear to be unravelling on the same day they weave them, which as far as underhanded smear campaigns go is entirely pathetic!
A speech maybe. They are done for media. But a fund raiser? No way.
The speech in Auckland on anniversary weekend – the worry was that it wouldn’t be well attended. Which was why the venue picked was so small. They had to move it to a larger venue to accommodate the people the people who RSVP’ed.
Anyone donating that sort of Money at a Labour fundraiser would stand out. If he is foggy on the date, maybe he is also foggy on what party he donated that money to. While someone donating big like that to a left leaning party fundraiser would stand out, at a right leaning party fundraiser they are far less likely to stand out.
There has been lots of proof about what National people have done wrong in this case but no proof any Labour people having done anything wrong, yet certain unbalanced press articles are still attacking Labour and letting National slide on its short term memory fades.
Do business people not realise that only really big businesses do well under National and medium to small business only do well under Labour. Labor put money in the pockets of their customers to spend at those businesses allowing them to grow. Under National their customers can not afford to spend much money with them and the tax breaks that National gives them gain them far less money than the loss of income due to a decrease in cash-flow from customers that can’t afford to buy their products. Any amount of money put into the bottom rungs of society will trickle up to them. Very little of the money put in to the top rungs of society will trickle down to them as it would be silly to invest in a company not making money. That money will stay at the top locked away mostly in overseas investments or family trusts with a very tiny amount trickling down.
why would he go to the trouble and expense of consulting lawyers doing an affidavit in mandarin, getting it translated and not annex evidence? unless it is a drip drip drip thing
That’s the point, Tracey.
Liu didn’t do an affidavit. He simply signed a statement.
The former has legal standing under the Evidence Act 2006 – the latter does not.
That, in itself, should raise suspicions as to what is going on.
Agree. I was only calling it an affidavit cos grumpy used the word fifty times on friday, so certain was he of its existence.
The simple truth is this is not the current Labour Administrations problem. The Leadership need to be shrugging it off.
I would continue to squarely pass the buck straight back on Mike Williams to field any questions relating to 2007. I certainly would tread carefully rather than kicking the shit out of a known donator (if he did). We don’t need a repeat of the Owen Glenn shambles do we team?
By now Labour should know all about this Liu and all the implications. Barker would have been interrogated ad infinitum.
The problem that Labour have depends on if there is more to this, if it’s bullshit, they need to come out and say that, safe in the knowledge that nothing will prove them wrong.
If they know there is dodgy stuff or even not sure they need to duck for cover and call for an internal enquiry – end result, throw someone under a bus, preferably someone no longer in the party.
The danger is, if there is more to come and some of those are still high up in the party – what then?
This week will be interesting.
You have to wonder why the Herald won’t supply Labour with a copy of the “statement”. That is the fair and just thing to do. Could it be there is defamatory claims that can’t be substantiated? Or maybe it contains detail of National’s involvement in the affair? Or perhaps it names one or two senior National Party personnel who have been in contact with Liu and co?
Could it be that the statement was signed in front of Michael Woodhouse?
ie it was allegedly signed on May 3.
On May 7 it was reported that Woodhouse met Liu in his hotel some time in April or May. That sounds like it may have been a week or so prior to May 7.
And does Williamson fit in to that time frame too? Just a thought.
According to that article I linked to above, Williamson resigned on Thursday 1 May. So then Liu signed the letter on 3 May. And Woodhouse probably visited Liu around that time.
Yep. The pattern is nicely coming together.
Is there a thorough timeline, esp from the time Liu wanted Nats to approve his citizenship? From what I am aware, would this be right?
* Dept of Internal Affairs (Immig) declined citizenship for Liu
* Minister Williamson and Akl Mayor John Banks lobbied Internal Affairs (Immig) Minister Nathan Guy
* Nathan, disregarding Dept of Internal Affairs, approves citizenship application for Liu
* Williamson and John Key at opening of Liu’s $70 million Newmarket development project
* Liu donates $22,000 to the National Party
* Apr 1st: Liu pleads guilty to domestic violence
* May 1st: Williamson resigns
* May ? (before May 7th): Woodhouse meets with Liu for policy to have non-English investors to migrate to NZ for less than $10m, and (?) the Newmarket development project stalls and on hold indefinitely
* May 3rd: Liu signs ‘statement’
* Aug: Liu to be sentenced
yup. Then 5 days later on the 8th Jared Savage sends his original OIA requests to Immigration and DIA, and oddly enough so does Woodhouse. (states he was interested in the “tidiness” of the file) The following day Woodhouse has knowledge of the Cunliffe letter and passes it on to the PM.
Ok, NZ Femme .. an update taking into account your details and other info online .. would this be right:
* Apr 1st: Liu pleads guilty to domestic violence
* May 1st: Williamson resigns
* May ? (before May 7th): Woodhouse meets with Liu for policy to have non-English investors to migrate to NZ for less than $10m, and (?) the Newmarket development project stalls and on hold indefinitely
* May 3rd: Liu signs ‘statement’
* May 8th: Jared Savage, NZ Herald, sends OIA request to DIA(Immig)
* May 8th: (!) Woodhouse asks for file from DIA(Immig)
* May 9th: Woodhouse told by DIA about pre-citizenship documents, i.e. permanent resident application-related letter from Cunliffe
* May 10th or 11th: Woodhouse-John Key office communicates
* Rest of May: Woodhouse’s office gives copies to John Key’s office
*Jun 18th: DIA(Immig) releases letter to NZ Herald
*Jun 18th: Cunliffe told about OIA release, just minutes before the release
*Jun 19th: Woodhouse tells three different stories (denies telling Key about the documents; says his office briefed Key’s office; his office says Woodhouse himself told Key’s office, as well as Woodhouse’s office giving letters to Key’s office)
*Aug: Liu to be sentenced
*Sep 20th: Polling day
But someone before May 8 must have briefed Savage on exactly what to ask for in his OIA, yes? That someone already knew that the Cunliffe letter was in the file.
Yup. Just circling and getting a bird’s eye view. Before helping to pinpoint and go for the swoop.
Show us the statement!
By the way, there should be another upcoming timeline:
Second half of June: Woodhouse resigns 🙂
Love the team work
Ooh, there is another strand, with some liberal editing:
Jun 5th (Thu): Banks found guilty; Coral Blue Botox Boag trails Banks … with rope not visible to the media (to rescue or hang him?); Banks refuses to go and invokes the Gods of Hypocrisy, Lies and Greed to back him, while singing about the rain or some such. Meanwhile, Boag (adviser to Banks’ failed mayoral campaign) stridently argues that it is all fine, everybody else does it too, and refers to chill going up the spine (hers?)
Jun 8th (Sunday dump, to kill the story and help Key get off to a headache-less week): Banks announces will put in resignation letter the next day. Botoxed Boag was at hand to serve the cup of hemlock. Banks remembers the JohnKey cup of tea with much fondness and nostalgia, sings and drinks.
Apparently Jared’s first request was too broad – which is why he had to refine it when it was refused on the 16th. He resent it the same day.
He has been following the Liu case closely for quite a while – he broke the story on Williamson.
The requests by Jared, initially and more narrowly reworded, would be worth seeing.
I know Frank Mackasey has a bunch of OIA requests in. Not sure he’s got an OIA request for the Savage requests though. Would be good to see them, yes.
Answer me this question: why would someone who has plead guilty to criminal charges then quickly decide to sign a risky, politically charged document BEFORE his criminal sentencing is scheduled to occur.
Under normal circumstances would the standard advice not be – lie low?
Maybe he thought it was worth the risk.
Good question, CV.
From the timeline, it is clear it was actually after Liu pleaded guilty and ?after Williamson resigned that Liu had the meeting, lobbied, and did various other things with Woodhouse.
edit: All that raise more questions about the influence and ability of Liu in attracting a Minister of Immigration/DIA to meet, after he (Liu) had already been in the news about the domestic violence guilty case and the Williamson connection/cronyism/resignation. Many MPs, let alone any Minister, would be keeping a long distance away.
What was going on? What did Liu have, or want, or wished to talk about? What was Woodhouse really up to?
my question exactly. why would a minister meet with someone within days a fellow minister got sacked for helping him?
And this minister is appearing to be a puppet lying on cue for those above him
It’s possible NACT have something on Liu that Liu doesn’t want to come out.
@ CV …maybe he is a pathological liar?…such people are often not cautious
…and he is a NACT supporter/poodle
…John Key and Nact will be keen to use him to distract from their own corruption and dealings elsewhere
Also – DIA refuses Savage’s OIA request for letters of support from Banks and Williamson. Those are still with the Ombudsman.
Thanks, NZ Femme. At 10pm on Sunday, I think I have to pass the baton.
How about someone update and assemble the timeline in whole?
Worth a post?
The Nasty Nuts set-up is probably hiding a few things in the smears and bullshit.
Just a couple more points
The original OIA requests from Savage for immigration material on Liu were to the MBIE. (Woodhouse) The OIA requests for letters of support from Williamson and Banks were to the DIA.(Dunne) Under the SSC 2014 guidelines for the election year, staff must consult with their Minister when an OIA request may be controversial.
I noticed a discrepancy(?) earlier around Woodhouse’s stated meeting with Liu when reading the May 8th Hansard debate, question 12.
Wednesday 7th May, he confirmed to the Herald he met with Liu “in April or May”. (No year mentioned)
Thursday 8th May in the House, he said:
“When I met Mr Liu in 2013…”
” I have met Mr Liu on one occasion, and it was on that occasion that he raised immigration issues. As far as I can recall, that is the only time.”
I can’t see any amendment to his answer at a later date.
Very fishy with Woodhouse.
Ministers are supposedly extremely busy people with many meetings booked in their diary.
Woodhouse can’t just be vague about whether the meeting was “in April or May”. His meeting with Liu would have been arranged, scheduled and traceable in his diary.
His stories at several vital points during this Liu saga have changed numerous times already.
Just checked Gower’s coverage of the Woodhouse/Liu meeting.
“I had a meeting with him once in about April or May last year where we traversed a range of those issues,” says Mr Woodhouse.
Ah. Thanks, NZFemme – different April/May form the 3 May signed Liu statement.
Thanks for the clarification NZ Femme.
That alters the time-line a bit but doesn’t change anything much. What it might mean is that the Williamson link becomes more important. The basic suspicion that there were secret assignations with Nat Party personnel which culminated in Liu signing a statement of claims against the Labour Party is still as valid as ever.
Yes, agree with you Anne. I really hope the Ombudsman releases the Williamson and Banks letters soon.
i thought joyce was mbie?
are banks and wiliamson the only ones? How do we know only cunliffe wrote about his PR?
MBIE oversees the Immigration service – it has more than one portfolio, kinda like the DIA which has 6.
understood. I deal with the previous dbh, which is now inside joyces whale.
Tracey, Chris Carter’s office also supplied assistance to Liu. Don’t have the link handy, but the letter was published last week. As I understand it, Savage requested info from the MBIE for the 2002-2005 period which covers the residency time-frame, and was when Labour were the incumbents.
Liu signs a statement on 3rd May. But when was the statement drawn up and who else had input into it? At that time Liu would have been extremely confident of his position. Cabinet ministers in attendance, the prime minister in the back-ground, and no doubt Nat president, Goodfellow (what a misnomer) was in on it. He thought he could say what he liked and get away with it given the important people he believed he had around him. So he exaggerated donations he (may) have made, and concocted the rest?
I heard Barker talking on Nat.Rad about the claims made about him. It was clear he never went on any $50,000 cruise. He didn’t even know the dinner was on a boat until he arrived at the venue. He realised it was a staff function of some sort and felt out of place so I imagine he left the dinner party as soon as he could without insulting his host.
What’s the bet they’ve all deserted Liu now they have what they wanted. Not that I have any sympathy for the individual. I hope he eventually gets drummed out of the country.
Wrong year Kiwiri 😉
yup, thanks for pointing that out.
Yup, there should be more about the Williamson and Banks involvement that is not out yet.
Without bringing in other things I have heard, and from just assembling the timeline,
…. it seems to me that given much more would be revealed that would reflect badly on Nats, they decided to proactively use what was about to come up to throw things on Cunliffe ?
+100 Anne…”I hope he eventually gets drummed out of the country.”
….the longer this goes on and nothing comes of it…. the more it is going to backfire on him and John Key’s National…i think even National Party people will be disguisted
John Key has brought the National Party to new lows imo
@Kiwiri:”* May ? (before May 7th): Woodhouse meets with Liu for policy to have non-English investors to migrate to NZ for less than $10m, and (?) the Newmarket development project stalls and on hold indefinitely
* May 3rd: Liu signs ‘statement’”
What a great primary question for Woodhouse.
“What was the date and time that Mr Woodhouse met Mr Liu in the hotel?”
As a primary question there is no dodging or ducking. Depending on the answer other questions follow. Borrowed Iprent’s 😈
Of perhaps it was the sixth of the third rather than the third of the sixth? That apparently is a Tuesday 🙂
very well worth following up
Forget news journalism, checking sources, cross referencing facts etc. With this, the NZ Herald has lowered itself to the status of a gossip rag.
“the NZ Herald has lowered itself to the status of a gossip rag.”
Not bad for a left-leaning publication.The worm is turning.Their pinko writers are beginning to dislike Labour with intensity.Last man standing,turn out the lights.It’s only 2 minutes to the tranny’s on K road,isn’t it Lynn?
The NZ Herald is “left leaning” in the same way that Margaret Thatcher was “left leaning”
You’re being a little shit Ronnie.
+100 CV…NZ Herald hardly “left leaning”!
So? In the 16 years that I have owned this apartment, they have never bothered me, and I never bothered them. I’m a native Aucklander, we’re really not that interested in things that don’t interest us.
I brought this place because of its proximity to the phone exchange, motorways, that it had two parking spaces, and that it has an 11ft stud.
My partner Lyn was interested in them for a while – as a maker of documentaries. I gather open trannies are a rarity in Invercargill. But now she pays them as much attention as I do. Not much.
It is the hicks like you from the right that spend all of the times being fascinated by other peoples sexual habits. Perhaps you should go and satisfy your prurient interest, hire one, and get over it?
But they like virgin redneck meat, and they’re tolerant. They won’t hold your stupidity against you. Besides which they can use the cash. I gather the operations are pretty expensive.
“Trannies” is a slur, lprent. And no sex workers, trans or cis, deserve to be in a financial position where they have to take money from judgemental wankers like Ronnie there.
I agree. Which is why I didn’t use it.
However the dickhead I was responding to clearly has deep seated sexually based issues that he should learn to resolve. He should learn to take professional help.
A government in waiting. Yeah right. This scandal will run and run till the next one. Labour polling will continue to slide and for once I now think that the Greens will poll higher than Labour.
Labour 30% – 34%
Greens 11% – 14%
Winston is still likely to be King Maker
Nah. Labour 18% Greens 19% Winston First 4%
Fisi can you help my understanding of this matter …
Labour received a donation from a Chinese businessman.
National received a donation from a Chinese businessman AND a minister of the crown interfered in a police prosecution.
So why is this bad for Labour and good for National?
Seems to me National is the one with all the problems …
Simple. Williamson resigned. End of story. The Cunliffe has not resigned. He is polling worse than Shearer. He will be shorn in September.
Also very culturally unacceptable to not use my full name.
It’s not about the polls.
What has the donation to do with Cunliffe?
He was not a minister. He didn’t interfere in a crown prosecution case.
You don’t get perception do you?
Ah, so national are evil, but better at spinning the story.
You don’t get “ethics”, do you, fucktard?
Personal responsibility on display again.
You mean the perception that more and more voters are getting that National will cling to any whisper of scandal to keep itself in power. Old letters, and vague whispers about donations. Yeah, that will bring Labour down.
another droll utterance from everyone’s least favourite troll – no wonder you’re single after all these years. You should have got out more but now …well it’s too late really isn’t it as some things can’t be changed. The best your right winging nasty life can be is trolling here.
I’ve met your ilk and it’s always a sad , lonely and tragic wee man behind these comments you incessantly bleat here to an audience who doesn’t give a shit what you say. Go back to Whaleoil and feel like man for a moment, just a moment . Bye!
Oh – I do get how righties try to manipulate perceptions. It’s called propaganda, and in a democracy, the news media should be highly critical of such propaganda.
Why did Cunliffe write the letter for someone he had never met and was not one of his constituents?
Happens. Liu was working through immigration agents who were the likely contact points as Cunliffe himself does not speak Mandarin.
I think the DonghuaDude @ twitter account has it about right:
it is clearly a drip, drip thing.
When you are in this sort of situation you drip feed so that you can win both if the other side comes clean with things you didn’t know for sure AND if they deny things that you do know for sure.
All about the Thorndon game, nothing about moving the nation forward.
I can definitely smell a rat with what is happening on this Smear Campaign by National, if they don’t have the facts correct it will blow up in theirs faces bigtime. Hopefully Labour haven’t got any skeletons in the closet if so get them out fast and put all the cards on the table.
+100 Jack. I think it is already blowing up in the Nats faces. Murphy (NZ Herald editor) sounded shifty, didn’t have any factual answers, refused to reveal his sources (Key) and attacked Labour on MR this morning (Listen above). No bias there then.
Meanwhile Barnett Labour Party general secretary, (also on MR) sounded honest and genuine.
I think Morning Report is starting to ask real questions on this issue (not before time) because it is now becoming obvious that Labour has been set up in a classic smear campaign.
Once the truth comes out I don’t think this will reflect well on Key with the voters.
in the meantime they going to cut down thousands of acres of native forest on the west coast.
It’s already down, they are just clearing up.
clearing up all that messy nature that gets in the way of making a buck.
Don’t be a retard. The trees have come down. They should be able to make something off it, rather than leave it there to rot. That’s fucking stupid.
yes because nothing at all happens on the forest floor does it
As I understand it some will rot and some will be salvaged where that can be done without undue damage to the environment,
In the above link, our ridiculous Herald reported
“Liu said he would not make any further comments about political donations or swear an affidavit outlining dollar amounts”.
The Herald article today was based on a signed statement from May 3rd that they had acquired.
Why are the media publishing statements from a man who has pleaded guilty to charges of domestic violence? Domestic violence is a major problem in our country and a man like this should be keeping his head down I would have thought.
He has admitted he is a wife-beater.
I have a theory.
Nats and whaleoil note the three month rule. See their chance to roll leftist leader.
Also note that short, fat but heroic PM will be grandstanding in press releases that only make news in NZ at this time showing close friendship with puppet president of large militarist banana republic, providing clear contrast with bumbling local leftist leader.
Liu is in vulnerable position legally due to assaulting several family members, offers to make up slurs on Labour in mistaken belief Nats own the Judiciary.
Meets Woodlouse and together with other geniuses, they concoct suitable story.
Nats then bribe Hipster unfairfax pollsters to poll right leaning areas to concoct a fake poll which will be released immediately after Herald article on letter.
Old journalist with credibility used to set up a conservative respectable face for certain less than credible known bloggers and gossips.
Nats believe the ABCs will roll Cunliffe with trio of bad news. Letter, poll, donation.
Cunliffe does not resign so plot starts to go pear shaped!!
Liu now being asked to provide affidavit starts to run for cover.
Strangely begins to miraculously speak in fluent English about how sad he is about nasty comments about him. No translator is cited to explainthis magical speaking in tongues for the Herald article.
Herald now panicking try to drip feed backstory of Luis signed letter early May re donation to justify sloppy journalism.
Strangely no fundraiser was held at the cited time or place.
Another magical event has occurred….. Invisible cash donated at fundraiser occurring in parallel universe somewhere in the galaxy……..
The other interesting thing is that in RM Shearer’s peak was last september.
His lowest points seem to be Autumn/winter, e.g. last july, when the full “a letter is being circulated” bullshit was being plugged.
Seems to me that the nactoids might realise that this is their only chance to roll cunliffe before he improves.
btw McFlock I now agree with your premise last year that changing leadership from Shearer was not in of itself going to fix a lot of the problems hindering Labour. A work in progress.
It’s got the makings of a half decent flick Jrobin, well there’s no sex and the bad guy is a bit transparent, but hollow men are a Warner Bros specialty 🙂
Jrobin – nicely written. I especially liked this bit
I also surmise that Liu thought the NATs could help him out with sentencing (= usual practice in China) and the NATs would have talked that up.
I’m grateful for the courage and commitment you guys are showing in this battle.
Having been out of the loop for a while I find myself reading this story with – an emotion I cannot quite name. It’s not dread or sadness – it’s a more a dull, tired foreboding. I think events entirely outside of anyone’c predicting or control will unravel the Establishment. When societies polarise to this extent they become unstable and inevitably some precipitating event triggers unstoppable changes.
For now I just don’t want to write anymore – except to pass on my highest regards.
John Banks had already majorly pissed off a donor for cutting off contact when that donor had a lousy prison mattress that was awful for his back.
The National Party stewards would not have wanted to repeat that kind of treatment for donor Liu and Woodhouse could well have been advised not to avoid Liu but to have a chat and see what arrangements can be struck?
except woodhouse is no genius, a liar in the making but probably not yet capable of making up his own lies
Pity you cannot OIA The Herald. It might be worth making formal complaints to Broadcasting Standards regarding libellous statements and falsely attributing cited statements.
The Herald would be covered by the Press Council, not the BSA. But given the short time before the election, I doubt it would help in time. It’s already a process story rather than a policy story.
I suggest the Party appoint an independent auditor as soon as possible to check its accounts for 2007. Maybe even a couple of years either side just to be safe. In the meantime continue with the put-up-or-shut-up line and carry on with the campaign.
” independent auditor” that rules out Deloittes then.
Yes, release some more policy and get on with deciding the List. The National Party haven’t released any policy except the Budget most of which was watered down Labour policy. Cunliffe may be right people are fed up with this bs and anything positive will be a relief.
The other fault is that the Herald’s alternate date the 6th March 2007 was a Tuesday evening. Again, it would be highly unusual for a major fund raiser to be held on a Tuesday evening. In all my experience of such events they’re invariably held on Friday or Saturday evenings in order to get the maximum attendance.
I think the Herald has got itself into a major pickle. Either it puts up or it shuts up – with a front page apology, thank you.
Yeah CV, don’t hold your breath.
Tim Murphy sounded very dodgy on Mondays morning report. Saw no difference between statement and affidavit,was sneaky on the drip feed and hasn’t fact checked the claims.Enormous Crocodile doing dirty tricks,he will be sizzled.
Demand that they publish the statement in full, unedited, uncut.
Is it just me or is the whole basis of this “labour is bad” reporting based on the fact that Liu is a bad person? Yet there is no issues with the actual donations to National… double standards much?
Talking of a Labour is bad smear campaign…
Anyone else see the Good/Bad banner in yesterday’s HOS? (It usually appears mid way through on the top right side. Under Good is a photo of someone who has ‘done’ Good and ditto for Bad.) This week Prince George was awarded the “Good” title. No prizes for guessing whose photo appeared alongside for the “Bad” title. Couldn’t have produced a more stark contrast could they… the cherubic little prince and the nasty, nasty politician called David Cunliffe.
I actually found that piece of slimy, subliminal messaging far more offensive than the written stuff. I’m rapidly coming to the view that the Labour Party can’t roll over this time. They must investigate and then start legal proceedings against the HOS at the very least.
Herald on Sunday should be forced to apologise for yesterday’s front page. Large photo of Cunliffe beside headline allegations. its defamatory and they know it. For too long they have been getting away with low behaviour.
Does the Editor of the Herald often come on RNZ as an apologist for dodgy smear campaigns. I can’t remember a precedent. Key also bumbling and bluffing. Suzies Is that all? regarding the supposed, more to come, says it all. It would be useful to unearth links between The Herald and Whaleoil at this point, as said blogger is already involved in a similar case about to re surface today. Lie down with dogs Tim Murphy and you’re bound to get up scratching and reaching for the Dettol……
The silver lining in all of this is that the National Herald’s long-running campaign to re-elect their Tory government and undermine Labour, in cahoots with elements of the National Party right up to the 9th floor, is gradually being exposed. More to come. Tim Murphy could well be looking for a new job once this is over.
There were two things Tim Murphy said that were of particular interest to me.
My guess is that the letter was supplied by someone in the National Party and that this is obvious from the contents or perhaps the witness, and this is why they have refused to let the Labour Party see the letter. I think this may end up biting the Nats in the bum (or at least I hope it does).
Murphy didn’t actually claim there was no difference to be fair. I think he was trying to backtrack on other flow on reports that wrongly cited the letter as an affidavit. This appearance on RNZ probably an attempt to cover The Herald legally as they are getting into the mire with this. Instead he further confused and conflated the two, signed letter and affidavit. There is of course a big difference. One is unsubstantiated gossip and a translation at that. The other is a document witnessed by a lawyer. Murphy must know this, further incompetence.
“The statement from Liu said the $100,000 bottle was purchased at a fundraiser on “3-6-2007″. A Labour press statement said no fundraiser was held on June 3, 2007, but the date could be read as March 6, 2007.”
Surely the Herald could have easily clarified if there was an event in March? It is not like contact with Labour people is thin on the ground. Labour seem to be doing everything possible to clarify the facts. The Herald seem to be searching for their dictionary to understand the word.
And Key’s comments on RNZ ‘I’m not sure of the figures involved’ seem a bit odd for a guy who just last week said he knew of “hundreds of thousands of dollars” Liu claims to have donated to Labour.
Wouldn’t it be funny, if after extensive analysis, the ‘donation’ turned out to be for National after all, and not Labour?
That would be funny, but it’s looking more like a zero truth smear invented by a desperate soon to be departing PM.
And Liu doesn’t look too comfortable with the cameras on him, looks like a worried meth head..
Maybe he meant the Greens? After all, the Greens have a conference every Queens Birthday weekend.
What do the Greens have to hide??? Russel and Metiria have questions to answer.
*Note to NZ Herald – I’m only joking, and you can’t use this as a reliable source.
Read your asterisked note.
I did wonder for a second if you were wanting to extend the smear to drag the Greens into this Liu-Key shit.
The readers of this site are into detail. Sometimes minute detail. The public simply hear “Labour tricky, Labour cheating. Labour useless.”
The only Labour policy messages that have got through is that they will raise the pension age and steal 9% of your wage by compulsion.
Don’t worry fistiani, the public will take notice when it’s revealed National made the whole thing up.
You tend to take a very very short view approach to everything Fisiani. You openly acknowledge that National are winning the ‘perception’ battle and as far as you are concerned that is enough.
What about morals, ethics, and having some semblance of a conscience?
National wining over the constituency on spin and perception alone is the equivalent of living on a bad diet, it’s fun and tasty, but eventually your body is going to find out you are shafting it and punish you badly.
A smart National supporter would rather they did not to play the dirty smear campaigns and win on merit alone, thereby ensuring some longevity. The same could have been said of the other side back in 2007 when ‘take down key’ seemed to be the only trick.
Oh fisiani: http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-21062014/#comment-835915
Or is too hard to admit that you are actually profoundly ignorant?
Just a thought
May be the amount was 100,000 Yuan
That s about 20k in nz
As Liu doesn’t speak english, may be there is a translation gap.
The Hawke’s Bay Charity Wine Auction in 2007 was held on Queens Birthday weekend. Maybe Mr Liu bought a bottle of wine there!.
Sounds like a lead the Herald should be following up on. Preferably before they published.
Done some googling, unfortunately the oldest snapshot of the website is from 2009: http://web.archive.org/web/20100513205856/http://charitywineauction.co.nz/catalogue.html
Found this, from 2007 stating the date of the auction: http://tizwine.com/index.php/ps_pagename/newsdetail/pi_newsitemid/478
Found this follow up press release:
That would seem to rule it out being officially part of this auction, as the highest price item they sold was a painting for $20k.
The prices there though suggest that $100k for a single bottle of wine is extreme, since they had barrels going for ~$9k.
It’s still worth investigating Fi’s info I think. Since there’s no evidence except Liu’s wildly changing story about the amounts he paid ($15,000 – $100,000) it’s possible the wine was far less than he’s alleged.
Jared Savage just replied to a tweet from Saarbo, saying that the Barker photo is time stamped 3/6/2007.
So we know when the photo was taken. The Hawkes Bay Wine Auction 3/6/2007 was held at the Hawkes Bay Opera House.
If the Barker photo was taken at that venue, the background of the photo may show enough detail to verify. Or maybe someone could ask Barker himself? It’s not at all implausible that he would hand out wine at a charity event – he was the MP for Hastings at the time.
Time stamps are only reliable if the date in the camera is set correctly.
Savage’s original article on the photo describes the setting as ‘an Auckland restaurant’.
“The Herald has obtained a photograph of Rick Barker with Juan Zhang, who has two children with Liu, after he won an auction for the bottle at an Auckland restaurant in June 2007.”
there is certainly no mention of Hawkes Bay in that article
Is the story going to change to ‘he won the wine in Hawkes Bay but was presented it in Auckland at a later date’?
Savage has a bit of a mess on his hands here.
The metadata of the photo in the Herald says “Donghua Liu’s partner Juan Zhang and former Labour Cabinet Minister Rick Barker with a bottle of wine at an auction fundraiser for the Labour Party.
03 June 2007. (man on Left is unknown says Jarrod) and Mr Liu had just purchased a bottle of wine signed by Labour leader and PM Helen Clark as a fundraiser for the political party”
Can we please please stop being confusing by showing dates as 3/6/2007 so we don’t know what date it really is?
Nice. Problem is that we don’t know who put that metadata in. It could have been the NZ Herald when they put it up on their site.
Of course they’d have to explain how they got that date when they had that photo up earlier than they have said that they got the statement from Liu with the date after they’d put the photo up.
I’m sure that there is a logical explanation forthcoming from the Herald…
Personally, I’m getting the impression that Liu wasn’t at a Labour party fundraiser, but maybe he thought he was….
It keeps getting better and better. Plus more and more confused.
It looks more and more to me like the Herald should have done a bit more checking of the materials that their sources in the National party gave them.
I believe the photo of the wine was taken inside the Hawkes Bay Opera House. I’m just trying to find the exact place!
says it was held in the Assembly Room of the Opera House.
It links to a pdf
that includes information about the auctioneer (in Australia) & MC. May be worth a try. HTH
Well, if that was the auction then it wasn’t a Labour Party one.
That would be extremely useful
I can’t find the location of the wine bottle picture. Surely Rick Barker would remember?
I’m sure he would now that it has been pinned down somewhat
“Can we please please stop being confusing by showing dates as 3/6/2007 so we don’t know what date it really is?”
Sure. Sorry if that added to the already large pile of confusion. Wrote it out as Savage did on twitter – he’s said this evening that his version of the un-cropped pic shows a date stamp. I’ve asked (nicely) if he’d mind posting his uncropped version. It would show more detail and might be easier to identify the surroundings. He hasn’t responded yet.
Sorry, I actually deleted my moan about the date but the edit didn’t work.
However, the Hawkes Bay Auction was on “3rd June 2007 at Assembly Room, HB Opera House”.
The metadata on the Herald photo states “03 June 2007”. So we can stop worrying about 6 March 2007 as a possible date.
How do you do the meta data trick? Could a slightly technically-challenged person (ok…me 🙂 ) untangle it?
Many image viewers will show Metadata. Just right click on the image and select Properties.
I have an “Image Viewer” on Linux. Looking at the image properties it shows me lots of details, e.g. that DateTimeDigitized was 16 June 2014. I suspect that someone at the NZ Herald just typed in some wrong crap.
just above you said “The metadata on the Herald photo states “03 June 2007″. So we can stop worrying about 6 March 2007 as a possible date.”
where did you source that metadata, off which image?
Can you post the image you used please?
I am a bit confused by that because the only timestamp data I got off the Herald image is from the basic image info in FF: Wed 18 Jun 2014 00:11:48 NZST
Gimp is generally as good as Photoshop for metadata but nothing is showing on any of the various sizes of the image that I can source online. All I get from the image is the generic sample sizes, image details and resolution, pixel count colour profile and format info etc. None of the camera publication date info is showing up. None of the online metadata services (that i have used in the past) can find any datestamp metadata on the image either.
I am no expert so would appreciate knowing what method and what software you used to extract the metadata?
There’s no Reply option on your above message.
Here is the Herald image complete with metadata:
Here is one page of the metadata:
Been added by the software by the NZH(erald)
The metadata was added by an image editor.
The original file name was AG_160614SPLLIU1.jpg
AG is probably a Leica camera.
I’m off to work now, but later I will check other Herald pictures to see who uses that camera.
Where did you source the image from before you posted it to tinypic?
It is not the same image posted in any of the NZ Herald articles that I could find.
The image you have posted links to is not of a size that was available when searching for versions of the image last night and is certainly not the image used in the NZ Herald publications.
“AG_160614SPLLIU1.jpg” is probably not the original filename – 160614 is probably the date is was supplied to the Herald. Judging from the quality of the photo, I’d say it was taken with a mobile phone (or the Herald image is a crop of a small part of the original).
I am not an image expert so I have had two professionals look at the image posted just today by jaymam.
One of the professionals is in commercial advertising specializing in computer generated imagery both in 2D and 3D fields but with over two decades of experience in print media, including a lot of newspaper publications.
The other services professional photography studios including image retrieval and restoration.
Both professionals who looked at the meta data agree
” All camera date info has been taken out. This is not the original image data.”
It is important to note that this in itself highlights nothing but the absence of the original camera data, and this may have been lost when first uploaded to the net, but this is not a common occurrence
Here is the tinypic image that was posted by jaymam.
Here are the screenshots from the metadata retrieval done on that image.
Here is a pdf link (good for about ten days) which contains the retrieved data of the images that were available before jaymam posted the tinypic image.
Note that there was no detailed metadata in any of those images.
The only image to have metadata present is the image jaymam posted on 24-06-2014 and for which at this time we have no identification as to source.
Thanks Freedom. Very interesting. I wondered if the photo was actually a scan of a physical print? The photo looks a bit like a scan to me.
OK, I accept that AG_160614 is very likely to be the date. I was rather hoping that it was the original file name generated by a camera, in which case I could spend a few days checking lots of Herald photos looking for similar file names, then I might be able to get the real camera EXIF data and hence the camera serial number (which surely you are all aware exists in every picture you take) and then guess who was the photographer. I now don’t think that will be productive.
I accept that the picture is probably from a mobile phone, and the cropped figure on the left is unknown (says “Jarrod”). “David” at the Herald possibly did the cropping.
The picture with the metadata is from the Herald server, trust me. Do you really wish me to explain in public how to look at servers?
I suggest someone should ask Rick Barker where the photo was taken. And someone in the Hawke’s Bay could have a look in the Opera House to see if the picture was taken there.
And if anyone recognises the background as being in an Auckland location, let’s hear about that too.
The location of this picture could determine whether National wins the election or not. So what the heck are you all doing that is more important?
jaymam, thank you for letting us know where the image was sourced from.
I want to be clear I was not having a go at you but as you delivered the image your posts had to be referenced. This is about the image and its history.
Jared has now posted his uncropped version of the pic with date stamp showing. Go do your stuff Jaymam. 🙂 (there is of course a please in that!)
I am happy to explain to selected technical type lefties how to get photos with metadata.
Hotmail has died on me so I have a new email address.
NZ Femme, Jared’s picture doesn’t have any metadata. However what happened to the top of the picture? It’s been cropped. Many photo editors delete the metadata when saving a picture. Can we get the uncropped original picture? Even if we can get more of the background, or the guy on the left, that would help. Or someone ask Rick Barker! Does anyone know him?
Hmm. I will ask him. (although I suspect he might be getting tired of my stream of tweets and questions) Have asked him earlier this evening if he had the time frame for Liu’s visit to the Hawkes Bay Rowing Club and subsequent donation to them, but he didn’t have the info on hand. I was wondering if it was the same timeframe as the Charity Wine Auction.
Also suggested (for the 3rd or 4th time – heh) that he check out the Charity Auction lead.
Am hoping that Barker has been updated and has some kind of record if he was a host/special guest at the auction.
For those who may be interested, here is a quick composite of the available images that have been cropped, put against a background plate that is a 6″x4″ print size. This is amongst the most common domestic photo print size and seemed a reasonable choice. The actual size is less relevant than the scaling + composition.
I scaled the composite image to what I believe is a reasonable framing of the scene.
I have included both portrait and landscape formats. As you can see only the landscape format makes any sense, Barker is a tall man but I doubt the person took a portrait format shot.
The landscape format shows ample space for the ‘unknown person on the left’. Maybe the identity of the person is unknown, but the person has clearly been cropped out for whatever reason.
i am now wondering whether i am going mad.
i thought the picture of the three of them is available to all.
i distinctly remember seeing the picture of the guy. he was also a tall chap, around barker’s height.
i can’t find it online now. i am quite sure i was not dreaming.
is there a way of retrieving webpages that i have viewed on my hard drive.
with instructions, i can trawl through firefox and elsewhere on my computer.
Kiwiri, I do not recall seeing that image, but that’s ok, there are several billion images out there on the web and even without that fact, we are all going a bit mad these days.
From looking at the known proportional aspects of the left arm of the unknown person, I would suggest that the person in question is not more than two to three inches taller than Liu’s partner. They appear to be standing about a meter behind the pair and about the same distance away to the right of them.
There are not a lot of images of Liu that are not head shots but in the image below you can see he is a slim person, a bit shorter than John Key, who is not the tallest guy in the world. It is not unreasonable therefore to suggest that the unknown person in the image, when the context of the scene is considered, is Liu himself.
Cheers. I should have said that from memory, the guy was definitely not Liu and was not Asian (East, South, or South East). The guy was European. I may be able to reidentify him even though I cannot now describe him from memory. Perhaps a session of hypnotism might be useful. But I can’t sketch very well to reproduce the pic of him! Looks like the photo has been replaced? I remember seeing the picture of the three of them online when the story broke. I would be happy to file and swear an affidavit!
it’s early days, but one day …. 🙂
and yup, like so much of what humans create,
it will be up to us if it is a tool or a weapon
Here’s the Opera House promo webpage, which includes some photos
Above the thumbnails there’s a link to download a venue brochure with more pics. That brochure has a link under “related publications” to a wedding brochure with still more.
The main auditorium has similar colouration as the Barker photo, but that may be due to tungsten lighting in both locations. Barker seems to be standing in front of a timber column, which is a feature that doesn’t occur in the various venues shown.
Tomorrow I will endeavour to get a photo of where I think the background of the wine picture is.
I have offered to tell people how to get photos complete with metadata, but have had no response so far.
i.e. I expect to get an email. I have done all that is required to get that email.
Here is a floor in Old Sofrana House in Britomart, Auckland, today.
The building has been extensively altered since 30 June 2007 when the Labour Party had a fundraising event there. The whole building has distinctive brick archways of various widths.
It is possible that this picture of the wine bottle was taken in Old Sofrana House. It shows archways:
The picture was date stamped 2007/6/3. The phone date may have been set wrong. However it is still not certain where the wine bottle signed by Helen Clark was sold.
Rob Salmond says “The wine you refer to sold for $1,600, and I have seen the record proving it was not to Mr Liu.”
The Hawkes Bay Opera House underwent extensive renovations between 2004-2007. The current interior may differ from that of the picture somewhat.
In general terms for fundraising wine auctions, here’s something of an indicator of what the returns are likely to be:
Fundraiser started with wine. Waikato Times, 26 June 2008, p.5
A fundraising launch for Putaruru’s Rangiuru Rest Home and Retirement Village raised almost $6000 on Friday. The wine auction used bottles signed by actor Temuera Morrison, All Black Brendan Leonard and Prime Minister Helen Clark, among other well-known personalities. The target is $1 million for 20 resthome beds.
No published headline. The Dominion Post, 31 May 2005, p.4
Some politicians don’t learn from their mistakes. Despite third-degree burns from a previous charity auction experience, Prime Minister Helen Clark is still not shy of putting her mark on things she didn’t create. Apparently using skills learned from former speaker Jonathan Hunt’s wine auctions, Clark took the floor at Labour Kaikoura candidate Brendon Burns’ campaign launch last week, pictured, hocking off the bottle of Political Savvy bearing her name for the princely sum of $80. We can only assume from the name that Labour now covers sauvignon blanc socialists as well as those of the chardonnay variety. Wisely, they’re still avoiding anything too red, either in policy or wine.
If signed $80 bottles of wine from fundraising events were turning up in the media in the mid-2000s, it’s extremely doubtful a $100k bottle would not be reported on at the time.
And of course, all the auction attendees would have to be sworn to secrecy over such a ridiculous bid. This is entering the realms of conspiracy theories. The auction also sold the magic bullet from the JFK assassination, Stanley Kubrick’s script for the moon landing and the Loch Ness Monster.
Considering that US$28k bottles of wine are on the UK Telegraph’s list of “10 of the world’s most expensive bottles of wine”, I think we can safely say that a bottle of wine being sold for $100k at an auction would make NZ, if not international, headlines.
According to an article on Scoop dated Monday, 19 November 2007, 4:52 pm titled “The Most Expensive Bottle of Wine Purchased in NZ”
And I quote here the first paragraph;
“Fine Wine Delivery Company Managing Director and major shareholder Jeff Poole recently paid New Zealand’s highest price for a single bottle of wine parting with over NZ$18,000 for the first ever release of a 6 litre Imperial of the stunning single vineyard Penfolds 2004 Block 42 Cabernet Sauvignon.”
The above price paid and mentioned in this press release by Fine Wine Online would not have been such a big deal if someone had actually paid NZ$100,000 for a bottle of wine at an auction a few months before this was published!
If the NZ$18,000 price paid by Jeff Poole was worthy of a story, I’m sure that if NZ$100,000 had been spent on a bottle of wine there would still be some trace of an article about it somewhere that was published in 2007!
Haha Fi, that would be hilarious. 🙂
It sure would. Fits the timeline.
Great research TS team!
If that were true Fisiani then the National Party would not be stealing Labours policies when their internal polling indicates support. Cunning they are, intelligent with an eye for detail, they are not. Eg PM doesn’t bother to read police report on Banks. Bridges doesn’t notice he has signed away a National Park. Bennett fails to collect statistics on child poverty so as to pretend it doesn’t exist. Smith refuses to collect stats on foreign buyers in Housing Market. These omissions are not accidental, they re part of the propaganda machine that oversimplifies everything. I am pleased you have admitted this is occurring. Do you have an ethical position though Fisiani, or is this your idea of democracy? I am a little shocked that the Herald are involved though, as they do have a reputation to uphold. They also have some excellent journalists. Thanks for the compliment on attention to detail.
This corrupt chinese businessman can not be trusted in any way. I believe he is trying to influence the course of NZ politic and the silent assassin is using him to do so all the way.
It’s not ok for John Key to say he heard….such and such. This implication is either founded or unfounded. Put up or shut up KEY. You are the ultimate in dirty tricks it seems.
What happened over 10 years ago doesn’t matter now. It has been your government MPs recent escapades with this arch manipulator with Williamson and other chinese manipulators with Collins that we have concerns about. Your government puppets are recent KEY. Labours is in the past.
What a huge distraction form the important issues you sly arch manipulator yourself John Key.
What has Liu’s ethnicity got to do with it?
So much for doing due diligence. I wonder if anyone has any faith in the mcmedia anymore?
I heard the editor of the Herald on RadioLive this morning saying that a statement was as good as if not better than an affidavit, I do hope he did not mean that in a legal sense..
He meant it in a “constructing political smears for your owner” sense.
He flushed his credibility down the toilet by saying that.
The target audience won’t see it that way.
Not yet. But first ensure progressive audience see, hear and think clearly.
There is hope. NZ can prevent the slide into the neo-Dark Age.
On Nine to Noon, mhoots didn’t even seem that convinced, that really tells you something…
Yes agree Ant, Hooten had obviously been briefed Don’t throw stones they’ll come back at us, it’s all smoke and mirrors.
Oh I wonder how the Whaleoil court case going anyone heard?
I don’t comment from inside court, and I usually wait for decisions.
Labour should be taking the Herald to court over this.
No ifs, ands or buts. Libel, slander, making damning accusations without evidence against people or parties is against the law.
Why would it matter, when the most you will get is a slap on the wrist in exchange for winning an election?
I’m guessing that if this does turn out badly for the Herald, the only places a few people will read about it will be blogs. As far as Joe Public is concerned the issue will still be David Cunliffe’s “tricks”.
The Nats (specifically the Joyce faction) have most of the media on their side.
Keep in mind that the numbers of actual people who vote for National in polls have stayed close to the same for years.
Get the undecided excited. Get out and vote.
translation: I am happy to light the touchpaper but won’t tell you who gave me a box of matches
For a twat who was quick to say “show me blah”,
the same idiot is now spouting “i am not going to talk about my sources”.
And the media didn’t have a follow up question to that!
I didn’t want to visit that NZH webpage initially but it was revealing to see that bullshitter in action.
Where is Donghua Liu’s proof? Never happened! Why aren’t the media demanding to see his proof and John Key’s source. Donghua Liu is full of lies. It is a serious thing in this country to make up such lies and did he not expect for them to check for proof? No records of anything. John Key’s beat up of Labour.
RNZ asked Key to reveal his source but he said he didn’t need to, and he suggested RNZ should reveal all their sources. No one is surprised how difficult it is to get any answers or proof from this surly kid who’s addicted to playing games. If/when Key gets found out he’ll just continue the game by claiming there was a translation mix up or something.
I just look forward to HIM getting the PROOF when votes are counted on Sept. 20
There’s a picture on the Herald of Rick Barker handing the bottle to Liu’s wife in a restaurant with heavy wood panelling. Does nobody from Labour recognise the event? Rick did hand the bottle over. So how much did he pay. Why can’t Labour just give a straight answer?
The law around warrants of fitness is due to change next month. Why doesn’t your car comply with them?
You have broken the laws that haven’t been passed yet, but it’s your benchmark for others. Personal responsibility means applying double standards, eh.
What?! That barely makes sense A.Bloke. There is photographic evidence. Just wondering why we can’t be straight up and honest about this. But the shonky way labour is circling this issue makes me (and everyone else in NZ) smell a rat. If they have nothing to hide then say so. It would be the best thing for the party. Give the full truth. What’s going on in the picture? And what happened at the auction. As it stand it looks like there is more dirt to come.
If you have a charge to make, present your evidence and make it. So far its just noise and time wasting.
I have no charge to make. Someone has a picture of Liu buying a bottle of wine at a labour auction from Rick Barker. He says he’s paid 100k. Balls in Rick Barkers court. I’m not required to bring legal proof. I was a labour voter. And would expect if you want my vote again that labour would be bending over backwards to show that they are straight, fair and transparent. The onus is not on me to prove wrong doing. I don’t care. It just looks dodgy. Labour are not fronting up and acting suspicious.. Makes me wonder what they’ll be like in a leadership position. The onus is on labour. If you are in leadership position with public money the onus is on you to not just be legal but to be transparent and up front to show that the money is being used as it should. If Labour don’t feel that way – then yeah – i’ll be forced to switch my vote.
[lprent: A concern troll. How surprising. Please take care to review prior comments before passing judgement on this dipshit. Hardly looks like a Labour supporter. Unlike the Donhua Liu allegations, we know exactly when and where you made these comments.
You make no charge, you just insinuate. But hey, I don’t require the slow process of the law. I just exert judgement.
If you make allegations against others, then guess what. You are required to make your charges clear, and be prepared to prove your case. It doesn’t matter if you are the police, donghua liu, a sociopath like (sources protected) Cameron Slater, a serial liar like John Key, or you.
So far you look like the stupidest. Certainly the most incompetent (and that is low standard to beat). And we all know what happens to the weakest link. bye.
Stupid fuckwit banned until after the election.
I’d suggest that anyone else using the same tactics and not wanting to follow him should take note. You know who you are. ]
Anon, at most, there is photographic evidence that a bottle of wine was auctioned. According to the rules at the time, Labour were no more obliged to keep records of this than National were of John Key’s $50,000 tie.
So your demand for a paper trail is either born of ignorance or bad faith.
Which is it? Are you ill-informed or dishonest?
7 years ago? For a guy who spent his life at events and who handed over many bottles of wine. So far we have that it was on the 3rd of June 2007. Labour has already established that there were no Labour fundraisers that day.
I suspect that you are just a fool.
Photographic evidence?! No wonder John Key is able to get away with fluff and flattery. Anon you need to enter the digital age. Photographic evidence …..but of what. Images are the most easily manipulated information, depending on the caption you accompany them with. Please someone from Hawkes Bay post a photo of the interior of the venue the Hospice wine auction took place in. The wood lining in the photo was rather distinctive. The dates line up and the rowing donation was in Hawkes Bay.
[lprent: Forgot to press save on the exclusion. Oh well – correctable. ]
You dumb motherfucker, Liu has confirmed he spent less than $50k on Labour, and paid nothing like that for the wine.
Didn’t stop you getting fooled into believing John Key’s lies like a credulous jerk, though, did it?
[lprent: Discarded one of your replies to anon to clean the comment stream. Don’t expect you’d be concerned as i was just announcing what I would be likely to do. 😈 ]
You were banned as from yesterday: look further up or http://thestandard.org.nz/the-middle-of-queens-birthday-weekend-yeah-right/#comment-837848