Show us the money

Last week wasn’t one of Labour’s finest and it would be hard to get a worse start to this week than the news that Donghua Liu spent more than $150,000 on the previous Labour government, including $100,000 on a bottle of wine signed by former prime minister Helen Clark at a party fundraiser.

The embarrassing revelations are contained in a signed statement from Liu, which the Herald on Sunday has obtained.

They come at the end of a horror week for Labour, already under pressure after the New Zealand Herald revealed that Liu paid $15,000 for a book at the same fundraiser in 2007. Labour has said it had no record of any donations from Liu. And leader David Cunliffe had to fight to keep his job after revelations he wrote a letter for Liu’s residency, despite previous denials. . .

he latest developments have sparked calls for a police inquiry.

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

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

Cunliffe last night dodged questions, saying it was a “matter for Labour Party’s head office”. Labour Party general secretary Tim Barnett said the party had no record of the donation.

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

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

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

• That Liu visited Barker in Hawke’s Bay in 2006, having dinner with him at an exclusive lodge and then meeting for breakfast the next morning. Liu said he made a donation to Hawke’s Bay Rowing, which Barker was associated with.

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

Last night Barker, now a regional councillor, said the revelations came “as a surprise and a complete reversal” of Liu’s previous comments.

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

Edwards added that although the blame did not lie with Cunliffe personally, he had to deal with egg on his face. “It does create a charge of hypocrisy because he’s campaigned strongly against the Government relationship with Donghua Liu and it appears Labour’s relationship is just as deep.”

Liu yesterday told the Herald that his donations had been in good faith without any expectation. “It is over to the politicians to make any appropriate declarations. . .

MPs  don’t always, perhaps even usually, know the details of who gives how much money to their parties.

That is to separate them from any accusations of money for favours.

But if the NZ Herald could get a photo of Liu’s wife accepting a bottle of wine from an MP, surely someone in the party could have too before they started slinging mud at National?

Surely someone who was there could remember the event and if not the exact sum, that it was a biggie?

Surely someone in Labour – whether currently involved or not –  who had the party’s interests at heart would have remembered someone paying close to $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a fund-raiser and reminded Cunliffe of that before he led the charge and devoted weeks trying to dirty National instead of concentrating on what really matters.

In his last few interviews he’s finally got his lines straight on that – the sideshows he’s tried to orchestrate to dirty national aren’t what matters but his problem is hypocrisy and poor political management do concern voters and he and his party are continuing to show both.

Before this latest revelation, Duncan Garner called Labour under David Cunliffe a train wreck.

. . . When Cunliffe utters a word or two these days the collective intake of breath among his MPs is simply frightening.

He’s had a host of gaffes this year – and the best he’s looked was when he shut up and stood in the background while his wife, Karen Price, talked about the birds (chickens) and the bees in an interview at their home.

Cunliffe was parachuted into the job of leader, not because his MPs really wanted him – most dislike him – but because Labour Party members and union affiliates were desperate for someone to articulate their values.

To say he’s been a disappointment is an understatement. After this week’s horrors he looks unelectable as the next prime minister. He’s genuinely gone from bad to worse. . .

John Armstrong said Cunliffe has steered Labour on to the rocks:

When it comes to casting aspersions, few insults are as venomous, vicious or more driven by utter contempt than accusing someone of being a “scab”.

That is particularly the case on the left of the political spectrum where the battles of old between capital and labour provided the source of the term to describe those who broke rank from the union and who were then ostracised forever.

A workforce which is now largely non-unionised has made such name-calling far more infrequent, and at times sound rather dated.

But there was nothing quaint about the leader of the Labour Party this week insinuating colleagues who did not give him their full support were scabs.

It was astonishing. It implied treachery in the extreme. What the outburst really revealed was someone looking for scapegoats for his own self-inflicted woes. . .

It wasn’t the letter written 11 years ago and forgotten about that did the damage.

It was that he’s fronted months of attacks on National for links to donors without the political nous to ensure that he and his party were squeaky clean first.

Where the leader’s chief of staff and supposed political strategist Matt McCarten was in this mess is not obvious. But whether or not he was let down by others,  Cunliffe led the attack without having first secured his own position.

Mud clings to the hand that throws it and this week Cunliffe managed to splatter himself, and his party with it.

But having steered the ship on to the rocks, he’s not about to hand over the captaincy, and it’s doubtful anyone could be found willing to accept responsibility for the leaky boat.

Today’s revelations have endangered the boat even more.

Liu said he donated a large sum of money to Labour. The party says it has no record of it.

That’s a very big breach of electoral law and raises a very big question – if the party has no record of the donation where did it go?

And to add to accusations against the party which tries to show itself as welcoming of diversity, let’s not forget the Labour used someone who was granted residency by a Labour Immigration minister to score political points and there’s a nasty undertone, deliberate or not of xenophobia in their attacks:

“However, because I’ve built relationships with politicians, made donations, because it’s election year and, dare I say, because I’m Chinese, I suppose I’ve been an easy target for some to gain some political mileage and score some points.”

In the last election campaign, Phil Goff was let down by his then finance spokesman, Cunliffe, when he was asked to show us the money for his policies.

Less than three months from the next election, the party is going to have to show us the missing money or confirm that a party which can’t account for money it’s been given for its own use can’t be trusted to handle money it takes from taxpayers for public use.


12 Responses to Show us the money

  1. Captain Fantastic says:

    No one does sleaze quite like the good ole Labour Party.
    When they do all this stuff, don’t they wonder how its going to look once it all turns to custard?


  2. Neil says:

    Cunliffe again showed how shifty he was this morning on Q&A. He has the audacity to call for more substantial discussions on policies, I agree with that, however he has been punding National as the party of sleaze and corruption.
    David you can’t have it both ways.
    Interesting talking to non-political people in the street who instantly dismiss Cunliffe as a “d……d” and in contrast to PM Key just not in it.
    Cunliffe wallowing in the sewer of public opinion while Key gets great free publicity at the White House.
    In the Q&A programme I was astonished at the abject performance of trade unionuist Robert Reid spouting rhetoric of the 1960’s. The recent performance of Helen Kelly was also a disaster on TV. Maybe they know that the SS”Titanic Labour” is virtually on the rocks.


  3. TraceyS says:

    He kept saying “it’s a matter for the Party”… the party which he is the Leader of. It might not be his role within the party to keep track of donations but the general public do not make these distinctions at all. They just see a loose cannon I think.


  4. RBG says:

    Check out Andrew Geddis on Pundit for comment on this and calm down, you are all getting over excited.


  5. Gravedodger says:

    Over excited my arse, this is an event up there with a rugby cup final, we are seeing a sea change in the political landscape unraveling before our very eyes and the saddest thing is its is our democracy taking the kicking.

    Time for some Churchillian logic methinks,
    “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

    Of course Geddis’s impartiality is so much more apparent than anyone else following the thread here. Might as well get Bradbury’s opinion too, then again that would sully an otherwise beautiful place eh.


  6. jabba says:

    if I was a soldier about to go into battle and I look on the hill behind me and see General David Cunliffe sitting on a white horse directing operations then I would 1/ shoot myself there and then or b/ run like hell in the opposite direction.


  7. So, jabba, you’re a yellow-bellied deserter then?

    Odd admission.


  8. jabba says:

    yes .. but if Norman or Turei were on the horse then option would be the only one .. but hey, the hippies believe in love not war .. aye?


  9. jabba says:

    in fact, if the Gweenies were around in the early 1900’s and/or 1930 ish then 1/ I would never had been born 2/ if I was then I would be speaking German or Japanese


  10. I’m willing to bet that somewhere in jabbas response, there is sense.
    It’s just well camouflaged.
    Did you really mean you flee from battle, jabba?
    Abandoning your fellow New Zealanders because you are chicken?


  11. I suppose, given your speech impediment, I shouldn’t be mean to you, jabba.


  12. jabba says:

    Mr Guyton, you total prat, there are so many posts from you on this site with spulling mustakes .. sometimes you race back to correct, sometimes you didn’t. So, yet another example of what a hypocrite you are.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: