The Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council.



Screen Shot 2014-06-27 at 7.16.17 am

Following the completion of my previous story on the Liu Affair (published next day in The Daily Blog) , I wrote to the Herald editor, Tim Murphy;


from: Frank Macskasy <>
to: Tim Murphy <>
date: Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:34 PM
subject: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence


Tim Murphy
The New Zealand Herald


Kia ora Mr Murphy,

After recent revelations, it has become patently obvious and apparent to all that Mr Donghua Liu is no longer a credible witness to any alleged wrong-doing or alleged inappropriate behaviour by David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, or the NZ Labour Party.

Mr Liu has;

1. Failed to provide evidence for his allegations of hefty donations to the Labour Party. The closest he has come has been a $2,000 cheque he gave to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club, on his own volition.

2. Mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation and attendance at a staff party, on a river-boat, in China.

3. Made no verifiable Affidavit, and provided only a “signed statement”.

4. Issued a second statement on 25 June, changing his initial allegations.

5. Offered no evidence for his second, 25 June, “signed statement”.

Since 18 June, when your reporter, Jared Savage, broke this story in a piece entitled “David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid”, the Herald has;

* published unsubstantiated allegations;

* failed to provide subsequent evidence to back up those allegations;

* published stories damaging to the reputations of David Cunliffe and Rick Barker;

* published allegations damaging to the Labour Party (during an election year!);

* published a column calling for David Cunliffe to resign (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order”), based on incomplete information, and omitting a crititical fact, namely that Cunliffe’s letter to NZ Immigration had been written in 2003, and was a legitimate reason why the MP may have forgotten the letter;

* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, thereby acting as a gate-keeper/censor of information that the public had a right to see;

* resisted calls to publish, verbatim, Mr Liu’s first signed statement, or his subsequent version, despite having no hesitation in publishing David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter to NZ Immigration (“David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid”)

* made little or no discernible attempt to investigate the background to Liu’s allegations; his motives; and who else might have been involved.

Under your watch, the tenor of stories relating to the Cunliffe-Liu issue has been one-sided and predicated on baseless allegations.

This has been a tabloid-style, highly-emotive, unjustified witch-hunt which collapsed only because Donghua Liu’s story changed and it became apparent he was no longer a credible witness.

The Liu Affair has seriously damaged your paper’s reputation and also further eroded public confidence in the ability of the Fourth Estate to report fairly, accurately, and without bias.

Accordingly, I submitthat it behoves you to put this matter right. I therefore call upon you;

1. The NZ Herald should immediately publish a full page apology on the front page of your paper.

2. It may also be appropriate for you to re-consider your position and decide whether your role as the Herald’s editor is now tenable after this shameful fiasco.

3. On 18 June, in a highly biased, unreasonable column, John Armstrong called for David Cullen’s resignation, (“John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order”). I submit that Mr Armstrong’s own position as a senior Herald staffer is no longer tenable and must take his own advice and resign.

These three steps are the basis upon which the New Zealand Herald can regain it’s reputation that has been severely dented since 18 June.


– Frank Macskasy


Note: this letter will be made public on “The Daily Blog”, and subsequently, on “Frankly Speaking” (my own personal blog). Any response you care to make will also be disclosed and made public.


Tim Murphy duly responded the following day;



TDB Recommends

from: Tim Murphy <>
to: “” <>
date: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:57 AM
subject: FW: The Donghua Liu Affair & Consequence
Dear Frank Macskasy


Thank you for your email below and your public complaint against the Herald.

Many of your opinions below are dealt with by today’s Herald editorial, which I attach:

As to your comments about John Armstrong – his opinion was responding to the revelation of evidence that a party leader had done what he had one day earlier denied doing. It was an entirely valid column. It did, of course, (consistent with the gentle approach you have taken below in regard to both John and my roles), suggest it may be in order for David Cunliffe to resign, rather than demand his resignation.

On the signed statement: There seems to be an unusual expectation being aired that inquiry journalism has now become a field in which all documents obtained are made public – a kind of open source investigative process. This, while superficially seductive, cannot always be the case in the pursuit of serious and ongoing journalistic investigations relying on confidences and respecting sourcing and legal sensitivities. Where officially available documents like David Cunliffe’s letter hurrying up the Immigration Service on behalf of Donghua Liu are released to us and to others it is obvious that they can be published in raw form.

We have, as the editorial points out, published stories inconvenient to both the National and Labour parties over the Donghua Liu donations and grants of residency and citizenship. And yes, in an election year! It is even more important at this time that issues of public interest are covered fully.

We are continuing to investigate the payments from Donghua Liu and the circumstances of his various migration approvals.

Thank you again for the email and we have no worries about your note or this response being published on your outlet of choice.

Yours sincerely


Tim Murphy

Editor-in-chief, Herald titles


I was not satisfied with Mr Murphy’s response, and responded with a formal complaint;


from: Frank Macskasy <>
to: Tim Murphy <>
date: Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM
subject: Formal Complaint to NZ Herald’s stories on Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others
Kia ora Mr Murphy,

Thank you for your response, dated 27 June, which I consider an inadequate response to my earlier email to you

Further to your response to me, you may consider this a formal complaint regarding the nature of your paper’s stories regardiing Donghua Liu, David Cunliffe, and others.

1. On 18 June, your paper published stories relating to a letter written by current Labour MP, David Cunliffe to the Immigration Service, dated 11 April 2003. In several subsequent stories referring to this letter, the Herald omitted any reference to the date on this letter, thereby suggesting to readers that the letter was recently written.


Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” –

Ref: Liu: $100k not just for wine –

Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order –

Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting –

Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ –

The consequence of this omission in several Herald stories is that readers who are unaware of all the facts may be led to the impression that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was a more recent event, and therefore not give due weight to his explanation that he was unaware of an eleven year old letter due to the passage of time and thus not recalling the incident.

Therefore, your reporting of this event, and omitting to refer to the letter as a “2003 letter”, is mis-leading by omission of a salient fact.

2. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $15,000 for a book at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.

That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 21 June, where Jared Savage wrote;

“National declared a $22,000 donation in 2012, but Labour found no records of Liu donations after the Herald revealed that he paid $15,000 for a book at an auction fundraiser in 2007.”

Ref: Businessman ‘donated to Governments of both colours’ –

The Herald presented an unsubstantiated claim as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that this claim was verified as true.

This was mis-leading reporting of a salient event.

3. Donghua Liu claims that he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a Labour Party fundraising event. Liu has not provided a single item of evidence to back up this claim, and the Labour Party states categorically that no such fundraising event has ever taken place on the date that Liu has given.

That has not prevented the Herald from presenting Liu’s claim as a fact, for example on 22 June, where Bevan Hurley wrote;

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

Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party –

This claim was subsequently amended on 25 June, where Jared Savage wrote;

“Controversial businessman Donghua Liu has issued a new statement to the Herald confirming “close to” $100,000 in total payments to Labour and its MPs – including anonymous donations – but clarifying that the money was not for one bottle of wine.”

Ref: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations –

Between 22 June and 25 June, the Herald has presented Liu’s claims regarding paying $100,000 for a bottle of wine as fact.

But Liu’s claims were not only unsubstantiated claims without evidence, but also Liu did not make a formal affidavit which would have given greater legal standing to his claims.

The Herald chose to base their stories on;

1. one man’s claims,
2. a “signed statement” rather than an affidavit,
3. no evidence,
4. no witnesses.

The Herald presented unsubstantiated claims as fact, thereby mis-representing the truth and giving readers an impression that his claims were verified as true.

4. On 22 June, Bevan Hurley wrote in the NZ Herald that the paper had obtained a copy of Donghua Liu’s “signed statement” which made several claims;

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

Ref: Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party –

The Herald has not released a verbatim copy of Liu’s “signed statement”, despite making public David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter on 18 June,

Ref: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid –

It is manifestly unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable that the Herald has not released, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” as it did with David Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.

It is unfair because the public have recourse to only one side of the story and access to only one letter, written in 2003, but not the more recent document by Liu.

It is unreasonable, because if the Herald saw fit to quote from Liu’s “signed statement”, then it should publish the entire document, in full and verbatim, so that the public can make their own conclusions on Liu’s claims.

Otherwise, by using only excerpts, the Herald has presented only a restricted version of Liu’s statement.

The lack of full disclosure has led to the Herald presenting mis-information. This was admitted by the paper on 25 June, when Liu changed his story;

Ref: “Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations” –

On 27 June, a Herald editorial admitted that it had mis-reprtesented facts based on Liu’s claims;

“We regret having reported inflated and conflated dollar figures.”
Ref: Editorial: Cries of bias will not stop reporting –

It is unconscionable that the Herald refused to publish either Liu’s original “signed statement” or his subsequent “clarification”.

The role of the media is to present information to the public – not to restrict it’s availability.

There are few reasons why a media outlet might not disclose information;

1. Court suppression orders,
2. Where a victim of a crime, or witness, might be harmed or otherwise impacted,
3. Where children are involved.
4. Where information might be defamatory and actionable.

Liu’s “signed statement” does not fit criterias 1, 2, or 3.

Does it fit criteria #4?

If so, and if the document is defamatory and actionable, is that why the Herald chose not to publish it, verbatim?

Herald editor, Tim Murphy, alluded to this in a Radio NZ interview on 23 June.

Ref: New Zealand Herald stands by its story –

If Liu’s “signed statement” could not be used because it contained unsubstantiated claims and statements that were potentially defamatory and actionable – why was the document used at all, as a basis upon which to publish a series of stories?

5. On 18 June, the Herald’s chief political commentator, John Armstrong, wrote a column that was highly condemnatory of David Cunliffe, and called for his resignation.

Ref: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order –

(A) At no time did Armstrong refer to the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to the Immigration Service had been written in 2003. As outlined above, this omission of fact would have mis-lead any reader who was unaware of all facts pertaining to Cunliffe’s 2003 letter.

(B) By omitting the fact that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration Service was eleven years old, Armstrong was able to arrive at the unreasonable conclusion;

“Either deliberately or through a lapse of memory, Cunliffe has been economical with the truth.”

This was a clear claim that Cunliffe lied.

(C) Armstrong further wrote;

“Unless Cunliffe can come up with a very good explanation, the answer has to be ‘no’.”

That statement ignores the fact that Cunliffe had already explained that the letter was eleven years old and any reasonable person would have understood that such an event would be difficult to recall.

Armstrong’s column, by itself, would amount to very little except an extreme viewpoint of one individual.

But taken in context with the Herald’s subsequent stories, based primarily on Donghua Liu’s “signed statement”, it becomes apparent that the paper has adopted an unfair and biased stance against David Cunliffe.

6. The Herald’s bias was further apparent in it’s reporting of Donghua Liu’s claims that he spent thousands of dollars on a social event for visiting Labour MP, Rick Barker. As Bervan Hurley wrote on 22 June;

“• 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.”
Ref: Businessman gifts $150k to Labour Party –

It has transpired that Liu’s Yangtze river boat social event was a staff party for his employees;

“”I went to China to catch up with some friends of mine, see some sights … and I made a side trip to Chongqing – I had not been to the city before.

“I was in the city a short time. Mr Liu showed me his business and that night, I attended a dinner which seemed to be a dinner he had put on for all his staff.”

Ref: Photograph shows Liu-Labour link –

Regarding Donghua Liu’s $2,000 donation to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club – which has thus far been the only claim by Liu to be substantiated – in what way is a donation from a private individual to a club evidence of wrong-doing by Rick Barker?

This incident and subsequent Herald reporting appears to be an exercise in guilt-by association or guilt-by-innuendo.

There is no evidence or claim by Liu that Barker prompted the migrant businessman to make the donation.

If Liu made the donation to “impress” Mr Barker, how can that be laid at the feet of the then-Labour MP?

Why has the Herald seen fit to spin Liu’s donation to the rowing club as somehow attributable to Rick Barker and the Labour Party?

If Liu’s donation to the rowing club in 2006 was designed to “curry favour” with the then-Labour government, it should be noted that Liu had already been granted residency two years before, in 2004 (

This was mis-leading, slanted reporting of a minor event.

7. In conclusion, I maintain the folllowing;

(a) the Herald has relied on the unsubstantiated claims of one man, that he made various donations to the Labour Party. These donations originally amounted to $150,000 on 22 June ( but were later wound back to $38,000 on 27 June (

(b) the Herald has relied on a “signed statement”, rather than a legally binding affidavit.

(c) the Herald has had to change it’s story after Liu provided a “clarification” on 27 June.

(d) the Herald has not published either Liu’s original “signed statement” nor the subsequent “clarification”.

(e) the Herald does not appear to have conducted any investigation as to Liu’s motivation for making his “signed statement”, which was signed two days after Maurice Williamson was forced to resign after his involvement with Liu was made public.

(f) Unsubstantiated claims were presented as facts.

(g) the Herald has not apologised for promoting claims of a “$100,000 bottle of wine” or “$15,000 book” – subsequently admitted by Liu to be incorrect.

(h) the Herald has mis-represented Rick Barker’s invitation to Liu’s river boat party.

(i) the Herald has mis-represented Liu’s donation to a boating club and unfairly linked it to Rick Barker.

(j) the Herald’s series of stories since 18 June has been biased against David Cunliffe, Rick Barker, and the Labour Party by distorted reporting and by improper emphasis.

(k) Reporting of Liu’s claims has not been factually based nor verified, prior to publication.

(l) The Herald’s stories since 18 June have been harmfully inaccurate, as outlined above.

(m) By not publishing, in full and verbatim, Liu’s “signed statement” and subsequent “clarification”, the Herald has not disclosed all essential facts and has suppressed relevant, available facts.

I await your response and your remedies (if any), to the issues I have raised.

-Frank Macskasy


Next step, the NZ Press Council.

Note: Anyone wishing to follow suit with a formal complaint need not write a ‘novel’-length piece like I have. A formal complaint can be a few paragraphs, focusing on simply one or two points.

Information on how to proceed is given below, under “Reference sites”.



Previous related blogposts

The Donghua Liu timeline – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media

The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?

The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign

Other blogs

The Standard: Take action against the Herald’s lies

References sites*

NZ Press Council – Complaints Procedure

EPMU – Journalist Code of Ethics

* Hat-tip – Zetetic




Skipping voting is not rebellion its surrender

Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes



= fs =


  1. .”Where officially available documents like David Cunliffe’s letter hurrying up the Immigration Service on behalf of Donghua Liu are released to us and to others it is obvious that they can be published in raw form.”
    Cunliffe’s letter was standard for a Constituent request and would not have been received as “hurrying up” Immigration Service or any other Government Department.
    That the NZ Herald again further adds to it’s bias against Hon David Cunliffe in an official response to your complaint makes it all the more serious.

  2. Brilliant Frank and thank you. I will follow suit and lay a brief and concise complaint to the NZ Press Council as well. I am sure others will do the same.

    Despite it’s editorial on 27 June, the NZH needs to be brought to task for the inflammatory information it is publishing. Interesting to note in today’s publication, Rodney Hide is also putting the boot in to Labour and Cunliffe, in line with NZH policies, which it continues to promote.

    I’d also be interested to know if Labour is in possession of copies of Liu’s statements yet! Up until last week, as far as I know the party was still being denied these documents.

    By the way Frank, when do you sleep?

    • “By the way Frank, when do you sleep?”

      Yikes! I knew I forgot something – sleep!!

      Truth to tell, the last three blogposts on the Liu Affair have been late nighters. Hence why there are the occassional typos and errors (eg, typing “David” instead of “Donghua” in a previous blogpost).

      Good point about laying a concise complaint. (Tim Murphy may be retiring before he manages to wade through my “War & Peace” length email.)

      First step, though, is to write direct to the editor of the Herald, outlining your complaint; Tim Murphy

      If the response you receive is unsatisfactory (which, I predict, will be, based on Tim’s response to me), then send your complaint to the Press Council. The process and Online Email Complaint system is located here;

      Reasons for making a complaint can be found here;

      I’ll be doing follow-ups reports on my progress on this matter.

  3. Ha well fucking done Frank, the smear campaign against David Cunliffe was ridiculous but of course so many bought it because if the NZ herald prints it, it must be true? Right?

    • Thanks, Chloe.

      Indeed. A smear campaign from a right wing blogger, such as that sociopath, Cameron Slater, would hold less weight than a similar tactic undertaken by the Herald.

      The latter is not only more “credible” (in the eyes of mainstream New Zealand), but also has a physical presence, unlike “Whale Oil” in cyber-space.

      I suspect that is why Liu’s backers opted for the Herald rather than an extremist right-wing blogsite.

      That, plus the Herald can protect it’s sources – a privilege denied to the muck-raking Slater.

      • I think it best that those of us planning a complaint to the Press Council, whilst needing to supply an over-all viewpoint, should each concentrate on one singular point. That way it is possible to be brief and concise and we will have a better chance our submissions are read and assimilated.

        For my part, I plan to concentrate on the apparent lack of research into the donations we know Donghua Liu has given the National Party over the past 5 years. The complete lack of reporting balance in this affair surely runs counter to the requirement from the 4th Estate that they be fair, reasonable and objective at all times. Simple as that really…

        It would be helpful for some of us if someone could supply an email address or instructions on how to go about making the complaint. Thank-you in advance.

  4. Frank, your tenacity on this matter is inspirational. Keep hammering away at them. For some reason I keep seeing Corporal Jonesy from Dad’s Army, saying, “They don’t like it up ’em, Capn Mannering!”

  5. Thank you Frank, for laying out the facts so well. This will make it easier for people like myself, who caught bits of it here and there and have been out in the communities hearing the mutterings of distaste from the very people trying to make decisions about voting in the upcoming election. We model critical thinking behaviour by quoting actual fact rather than blindly believing the missives of sycophants like Armstrong and his ilk. It is of concern that a newspaper seen to be one of the leading national media for fact, got it so wrong. (the other one being TVNZ of course, Corin Dan, Susan Wood should also sit alongside the Herald staff defending themselves against a charge of defamation, in my opinion). Then they all compounded the error by repeating it in many different forms, it dominated the news for more than a week. It was an obvious attempt to discredit both men and their political party and it begs the question, ‘how safe is the information the public receive with regard to politics from any national public source?’ Then we have the discussion about corruption, it is a blatant threat to our democracy as it impacts the way the voting public will decide . Interpretation of fact is one thing, this example of ‘media spin’ goes to the extreme of misrepresentation.

    • The interesting here – and something none of us should forget – is that when citizens “google” things like “donghua liu”, they won’t just get the Official Party Line, according to the National Party Politburo, and parrotted by the Nat’s organ, the NZ Herald – no, they will get counter views.

      Counter views such as has been published here, on The Daily Blog, The Standard, Bowalley Road, No Right Turn, The Dim Post, and elsewhere.

      Internet search engines have democratised information and when we present counter-views to what is printed in the Herald – people take notice.

      If I were Mr Murphy, I’d be worried about how many citizens are reading material that run counter to the Official Line in the Herald. Because it is the Herald that stands to lose it’s reputation with middle class New Zealand, and alternative media builds credibility instead.

      In the final analysis, it is not David Cunliffe, or Labour, or even John Key who has lost out in the Liu Affair. It is the Herald for promoting that garbage.

      If I were Herald directors and share-holders, I would be mightily pissed off at what has transpired since June 18…

  6. So let me get this right.

    Now a new statement, again confirmed by his lawyer, says Liu’s donations to Labour were close to $100,000, but in total. That includes anonymous donations to MPs and the entire cost of the Yangtze River boat trip.

    “The most important part is that there were about 200 people on the boat, most of them his staff and their partners,” says former Labour minister Rick Barker. “I thought it was a staff function.”
    “I doubt Mr Barker asked Mr Liu to take his entire company on a boat trip,” says Mr Cunliffe. “Frankly it’s ludicrous.”

    Liu claimed the boat ride with a Labour Minister on board a dinner barge soiree as a donation to the Labour Party? Has he claimed this donation for New Zealand tax credits, and if he has, isn’t it then tax fraud/evasion?

    Presumably he also claimed the tax credit in China, because there were some Chinese officials on the boat as well?

    He should be investigated by the New Zealand and/or Chinese respective Inland Revenue Departments for tax evasion/fraud.

    And the smell of corruption just keeps lingering in the air. like a rcently dead BLUE skunk.

    • McC – indeed. It gets more ridiculous by the day.

      If “Third Degree” or “Campbell Live” did a full story on the Herald’s allegations and their inability to substantiate them, the paper would be the laughing stock of the whole country.

      That, and the Nats would lose the election and Key’s career would come to a crashing end.

  7. Failed to provide evidence for his allegations of hefty donations to the Labour Party. The closest he has come has been a $2,000 cheque he gave to the Hawke’s Bay Rowing Club

    This donation has nothing to do with the Labour Party.

    .nothing. at . all.

  8. It is also ironic that Dishonest John cut himself free from NZ Herald the day before the wheels came off the smear campaign. Before that he was obviously in the loop and smugly egging it on from the sidelines.

    At first hint of impending trouble Teflon John quickly left the Herald high and dry to face the music on its lonesome. Perhaps Murphy, Savage, Roughan, Armstrong and other Key worshippers are discovering just how loyal those steeped in corporate bankster culture are to their friends and supporters, once they have become a liability.

  9. Well done Frank! This is what the Right fears – people who stand up and don’t take shit!!

    I’ve written to Murphy as well. Let’s see what crap he comes up with!

  10. Frank, time for a glass of water and look around. This isn’t over by a long shot.

    At the moment you remind me of someone whose gone down to an empty beach to get a better view of the large wave in the distance.

Comments are closed.