Hard News: Media Take: The Panama Papers
84 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
These types of things are significant when people are looking for excuses to vote out a government, but I don't get the feeling that people are looking for an excuse to do that right now.
Astute. The people who need this govt removed the most have stopped voting.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
but when they are caught on the hop it’s another story.
0ne hopes that it will be the wearing of his 'Panama Hat' that brings Key down...
-
izogi, in reply to
The people who need this govt removed the most have stopped voting.
Yes. Apparently.
Possibly also people who've never voted.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Astute. The people who need this govt removed the most have stopped voting.
And also because Third Wayism and Blue Dogism are so 1997.
-
Key's claim that his personal lawyer Ken Whitney is "highly ethical" has been called into question by the High Court. Matt Nippert tells the story.
John Key's lawyer Ken Whitney was criticised by the High Court after creating a sham trust for a bankrupt property developer then failing to disclose it to authorities probing his client's insolvency.
When asked during cross-examination if he had concerns around setting up structures to allow a bankrupt to continue in business, Mr Whitney told the court: "No not particularly. It's a common thing for people to do. It may not be morally as white as it could be but it's normal practice."
Everyone is doing it? Not as white as it could be? Is everyone on Planet Key colourblind or blatantly corrupt?
The developer in question is Rod Nielsen, a man renowned in Queenstown for leaving a wake of messy developments, bankruptcies and dirty doings when he skipped to the US a few years ago.
Basically, Whitney set up a sham trust for a declared bankrupt then knowingly concealed that information from investigators. This sounds like a job for the law society. I wonder if Whitney's current status as a non-lawyer may prevent that?
-
Today's Garrick Tremain cartoon.
-
linger, in reply to
Key’s lawyer’s ethics are said “high”.
We must support his thinking,
in that his standards seem to be
not only high, but stinking. -
Sacha, in reply to
set up a sham trust for a declared bankrupt then knowingly concealed that information from investigators
Surely that's a crime of some sort in itself?
-
On reflection, I've reworked my poem a bit as follows:
Key calls his lawyer's ethics "high",
and few can fault his thinking:
ethically, he seems to be
not merely high, but stinking. -
Alfie, in reply to
I’ve reworked my poem…
Love your work Linger.
Today’s Herald editorial says Key must accept responsibility for any sloppiness in the Whitney affair. In the same paper, Bryan Gould reminds us about Key’s numerous brain fades and paints him as a man with a slogan – "The buck stops anywhere but here."
Gould obviously expects Key’s enquiry to be another (remember Judith Collins) whitewash.
The end result is that, instead of an independent inquiry organised by the IRD in the public interest into business practices that do New Zealand no credit, we have a limited inquiry conducted by a single finance industry insider, hand-picked by a Prime Minister whose hand has been forced.
When the establishment of that inquiry was announced, it was met with widespread scepticism. With all that has happened since, both the credibility of the inquiry and the Prime Minister’s reputation have suffered further damage. We need something better.
I’ve been thinking about Key’s claim that his lawyer was a man of the “highest integrity”. Maybe he’s right, in a way. When all of your friends and colleagues are up to their elbows in dirty tricks and corruption, someone like Whitney may well appear to have higher morals than most.
It’s a relative thing.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
That type of thing would be a crime, except that the governments of John Key and others (I'd include in this the Clark government, whose ministers no doubt fell asleep when the topic of business regulation came up - see also finance companies) have made sure that the laws against white collar fraud are almost unenforceable.
-
izogi, in reply to
The people who need this govt removed the most have stopped voting.
Just continuing on this thought.
This whole thing questioning the PM's integrity is obviously important, but it's also still a sideshow. There have been any number of other comparable sideshows in recent years, none of which which have made a significant difference to polling or election outcomes. It's not too surprising, either. What's the connection between an individual's day-to-day wellbeing and the semantics of communications between Ministers and a lawyer? Sure it exists, and in the big scheme of things it's significant, but try explaining it in a way that will inspire potential voters.
The government's not likely to change until opposition advocates manage to identify and communicate with people who are allowed to vote, and successfully convince them that their own lives can be better but that they have to actually turn up and vote for it to happen. Then it has to actually deliver.
-
It seems that the Government enquiry into NZ's foreign trust rules is destined to be another whitewash. You know the kind of thing... handpick your own "expert", make sure the terms of the enquiry are so restrictive that they're unlikely to reveal any nasty little secrets and Bob's your uncle. Or Judith is completely vindicated. Take your pick.
Transparency International has issued a statement saying it was "extremely surprised and disappointed at the limited scope of the Shewan inquiry".
The Government's initial response was to dismiss the 60,000 references in the Panama Papers as irrelevant, apparently in a misguided attempt to protect the $26 million earned by local professional advisors involved in the foreign trust industry.
From this perspective, rather than impinging New Zealand's reputation, it appears that the Government saw the first wave of the Panama Papers as advertising for a potential burgeoning industry. Just think, there are estimated to be around 12,000 foreign trusts in New Zealand. Why not attract 100s of thousands of trusts as the Panama Papers fallout forces trusts to move from enhanced scrutiny in places like Panama and the British Virgin Islands? Then, New Zealand professional advisors could bring in as much as half a billion a year!
However Revenue Minister Michael Woodhouse says he's happy with the scope of the Shewan review. No surprises there.
Woodhouse said Inland Revenue had already made changes to the way offshore shell companies were directed, such as requiring a New Zealand-based director, which had addressed some of the concerns about associations to financial crime.
Why do I get the feeling that our country is being run by a bunch of crooks?
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
Why do I get the feeling that our country is being run by a bunch of crooks?
No, no, no....the crooks are the cyber hackers that breached Mossack Fonseca's security.
He said the massive information leak from the Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca, which revealed global tax avoidance practices, is proof no company was safe from hacking.
"Whatever the rights and wrongs of whatever business they do, these people have sat there thinking they're dealing with their clients on a confidential basis."
"Their information has been hacked and is now in the public domain."
Our Leader, clearly so concerned, so anxious that you can just about here his breathlessness goes on...
"You might be a doctor that's dealt with sexually transmitted diseases, and that information is confidential to that person, then all of a sudden, that information is in the public domain."
Thank the lord that we have CERT to protect the Good Guys.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Michael Woodhouse says he’s happy with the scope of the Shewan review.
Obviously it's a 'peri-scope' - ie the man is away with the fairies...
-
Sacha, in reply to
"You might be a doctor that's dealt with sexually transmitted diseases, and that information is confidential to that person, then all of a sudden, that information is in the public domain."
Nah. Unless Bill English makes it shareable across other agencies without proper ethics training like all nurses and doctors get.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
proper ethics
...as opposed to improper?
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
No, no, no….the crooks are the cyber hackers that breached Mossack Fonseca’s security.
There is no evidence to say cyber-hacking was the source of this data (aside from speculation it may have been engineered by anti-Putin Russian sources) and if it is anything like the Luxembourg Leaks or Edward Snowden's revelations they were both done by insiders with legitimate access and USB sticks (or similar).
But Key does like throwing good money after bad it seems... -
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
Sorry...my mind, upon reading "proper ethics training like all nurses and doctors get", immediately and for no obvious reason flashed onto the unfortunate incident of unethical sharing of x-rays of the person who fronted up to A&E after a really unusual accident involving a fish...which, bizarrely, somehow ....fits.
-
Sacha, in reply to
It does have to be ingrained in the culture, yes. But you think nurses or doctors are bad, just try cops, teachers or social workers. Investment in training and monitoring needed, not just IT systems.
-
Alfie, in reply to
No, no, no….the crooks are the cyber hackers that breached Mossack Fonseca’s security.
The best information available so far suggests that an insider copied the Mossack Fonseca files, so there was no hacking involved at all. That makes it a rather foolish example for Key to choose. Mind you, it does show you where his head is at.
A whistleblower exposes the criminal wrongdoings of thousands of super-wealthy tax-evaders, and Key immediately commits $22m to preventing that same happening here. Despite Key portraying his lawyer as being a bit bumbling and sloppy, Ken Whitney and his mates will no doubt be delighted to have millions of taxpayer dollars being used to protect their "interests".
A listener contacted Morning Report today paraphasing Key.
'Don't worry about the morality, we'll help you hide your secrets.'
Damn right.
-
The Standard has published this screenshot of two conflicting headlines. The first dated May 3rd quotes Key as having spoken to Whitney who confirms his (fairytale) version of events. The second dated two days later quotes Key as saying he hasn't spoken to his lawyer at all. One of these quotes is a blatant lie from our PM.
Note that Mediaworks has since changed the story, but forgot to change the url which is still damning.
-
It's official... there was no Mossack Fonseca hack. Calling him/herself John Doe, the whistleblower has published an 1800-word statement which begins, "Income equality is one of the defining issues of our time."
John Doe accuses banks, financial regulators and tax authorities of having failed.
"Decisions have been made that have spared the wealthy while focusing instead on reining in middle- and low-income citizens."
Doe offers to cooperate with prosecutors in return for immunity. But more importantly, he/she has singled out Prime Minister John Key for criticism.
The statement said Mr Key had been "curiously quiet" about New Zealand's role in enabling the "financial fraud Mecca" of the Cook Islands.
Key is the only world leader to be named in the document.
Here's the full statement courtesy the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
-
Toby Manhire blows away John Key’s April 13 statement that he had been assured that his longstanding personal lawyer, Ken Whitney, had not worked or dealt with Mossack Fonseca. He includes a letter from Ken Whitney to Mossack Fonseca’s Compliance Department and points out some subtle but damning changes which have been made to Whitney’s website since the Panama Papers broke.
And he challenges the widely misreported untruth that Whitney is ‘Key’s personal lawyer’.
Some lawyers may take exception at the idea they might be sloppy email writers. But Mr Whitney, it turns out, is not a lawyer, or he was a lawyer, but he is not a lawyer any longer. Which means he is not Mr Key’s personal lawyer, as he is routinely and sloppily described.
As Mr Whitney reportedly told the Standard blog, “I’m not calling myself a lawyer, Mr Key is.”
The sloppiness, it is all around us!
The Australian Financial review has more details on the OIO and the Grozovsky's "investment" in NZ.
I get the feeling there’s a lot more to come as diligent journalists work their way through these millions of documents.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
Key is the only world leader to be named in the document.
This the same Key who was, just the other day, spouting about the evils of hackers and the need to protect the innocent????
Oh! My, my, my. How we lie.
I wonder if the teflon will hold up this time?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.