Mossack Fonseca bites National on the arse

Written By: - Date published: 7:19 am, April 29th, 2016 - 348 comments
Categories: david cunliffe, Globalisation, greens, john key, national, same old national, tax - Tags: ,

Mossack Fonseka taxes are for poor people

Maybe there is a God and if so she has to be a left winger.  Latest events are trashing John Key’s carefully constructed persona of being an ordinary dude who is good to have a beer with and cares about everyone and have highlighted his fundamental weakness.  He is not a former Housing Corp house dweller done good trying to make New Zealand a better place for all of us.  He is part of the 1% and totally indifferent to the damage to societies and governments that tax evasion by the rich causes.

The trouble with issues surrounding Mossack Fonseca is that there is that much information and so many deals to be investigated the Government must feel like it is playing whack-a-mole in trying to deal with the fallout.

One recent issue was disclosed by David Cunliffe yesterday.  The Overseas Investment Organisation had allowed a Mossack Fonseca associated entity to purchase a farm in the Taranaki.  From Radio New Zealand:

Labour has found, using written Parliamentary questions, the date of the transaction and we were then able to search back through the OIO’s papers to find which one it was.

“And there’s only one it can be.

“[Ceol & Muir] has three directors which have together been associated with about 1400 other company purchases – most of those registered in Panama.”

Mr Cunliffe told Morning Report the two people who effectively own the station now were not currently directors of Ceol & Muir.

He said he was not claiming Ceol & Muir had done anything wrong – his concern was that the OIO must be relied upon to conduct a robust investigation of every application to buy sensitive land.

“We do not know and it must be now told to the public exactly what good character test was applied to whom when the application was made.

“As the minister herself has said that good character test is actually an ongoing test so we need also to know whether the OIO has recently satisfied itself that all the conditions have been met.”

Mr Cunliffe said the OIO was internationally known as a “wet bus ticket” having approved more than 99.75 percent of all applications since 2011.

And it emerged this morning that the two people behind the purchase were found criminally responsible in 2011 for polluting a river in Argentina with toxic material from a tannery they owned.

You have to wonder how an entity or individuals can pass the good character test given all of this.  The OIO has power to review decisions to check on compliance.  It should do so.

The second and potentially the most damaging issue is the disclosure that John Key’s lawyer Ken Whitney lobbied Key to not change rules surrounding foreign trusts.  Key told Whitney to speak to revenue minister Todd McLay.  He then did so and despite IRD advice that the issue be addressed the Government refused to do so.

A timeline based on an OIA response obtained by the Greens is fascinating:

  • December 3, 2014 – Whitney emails Todd McLay, mentions that he had raised the issue with Key and was told he should meet with McLay to discuss concerns. His email also said “[w]e are concerned that there appears to be a sudden change of view by the IRD in respect of their previous support for the industry. I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this and he advised that the Government has no plans to change the status of the foreign trust regime.”
  • December 4, 2014 – McLay’s staff writes to IRD to say that “after further reflecting on the discussion yesterday, he expressed some concern that one of the options that will be presented in the report to him before the end of the year would be the removal of the foreign trust regime.” A senior IRD official replied saying they will “bear this in mind in how we write the report.”
  • December 12, 2014 – IRD urges the Government to add a review of foreign trusts to its work programme on the basis that the trusts regime has attracted adverse international comment because New Zealand based trusts with a foreign settlor and beneficiaries do not have to pay tax in New Zealand and New Zealand was perceived as a tax haven in that regard. It did not include an option of removal of the foreign trust regime but the option of reviewing the operation of foreign trusts was the next best thing.
  • December 18, 2014 – Todd McLay meets with representatives of the industry at Whitney’s office. Nice that a Minister of the Crown should make a house visit and so soon after the request was made.
  • January 22, 2015 – Olivershaw Ltd states in a letter “[f]oreign trust industry very pleased with their meeting with Minister”. A further meeting on February 19, 2015 is confirmed.
  • March 18, 2015 – the NZ Trustee Companies Association Ltd writes to Paul Goldsmith and states “[l]ast year a report to ministers by tax policy officials was publicly released raising the possibility that this year the government might initiate a review of the foreign trust tax rules with a view to taxing such trusts on offshore income. This would be likely to close the New Zealand industry down – foreign investors can have their funds managed in many other countries that do not levy additional taxes on them, hence they would shift their funds to those countries.”
  • May 15, 2015 – McLay decides that no review will occur.
  • April 4, 2016 – The Panama Papers leak is announced.
  • April 11, 2016 – Key announces review of foreign trusts regime, reversing the earlier decision although former PWC director John Shewan and not the IRD will conduct the review.
  • April 12, 2016 – Key’s register of pecuniary interests is published and his deposit with Whitney’s Foreign Trust company is disclosed.
  • April 14, 2016 – Key told media that “one of the [lobby] groups asked me about it [the IRD report].” He said he told the individual that “I haven’t got a clue about any changes but go and take it up with the minister”. He did not mention that the individual was his lawyer. It is surprising that the Government response was so immediately negative given Key’s presentation of the issue in such a passive way.

So basically Ken says to John changing the rules will destroy Ken’s business.  John tells Ken to talk to Todd.  Ken emails Todd and Todd immediately tells IRD to not say that foreign trust rules should be changed.  IRD says to Todd that it thinks foreign trusts should be reviewed.  Todd makes a special visit to Ken’s office to speak to Ken’s friends.  Ken’s friends are happy with the meeting.  Todd decides not to even review the foreign trust rules.  Of course there is nothing to see here and it is all an unfortunate series of coincidences.

Make of it what you will. I suspect that over the next couple of weeks the media and political focus on this issue and on Key’s actions will be intense.  And his Teflon coating will be shown to have been scoured.

348 comments on “Mossack Fonseca bites National on the arse ”

  1. invisiphilia 1

    What an embarrassing situation. A shonkey PM supported by a “nothing to see here” media. Thank goodness that somewhere in the world people with integrity decided that enough was enough and that the world needed to know the extent of corruption. Shame it had to be a bunch of foreign journos running with the Olympic torch on this one (bar the likes of Nicky Hagar who I believe is looking into yet another scandal?).

    Thank goodness for “dog with a bone” Politicians like David Cunliffe and praise be to leftie bloggers!

  2. heather tanguay 2

    Things are starting to unravel, these are the facts and there must be answers, no more tricky answers. Well done David Cunliff finding this information to help expose the shonkey dealings taking place in NZ

  3. mary_a 3

    Stinks to high heaven!

    Hopefully, all opposition parties will keep this one fired up and burning hot when Parliament resumes next week. Msm journalists need to also do the same, proving their worth as the proxy of the people, by exposing FJK and his ministers!

    FJK telling his lawyer Whitney to have a word in the ear of the minister of revenue McClay, in an effort to prevent the IRD taking action against NZ’s foreign tax rules, demonstrates there is definite corruption in the ranks of NatzKEY! This is serious!

    Something has to come out to corner FJK through his involvement here, enough to have him removed from office!

    If not, then we are really in big trouble!!

    • Draco T Bastard 3.1

      Something has to come out to corner FJK through his involvement here, enough to have him removed from office!

      That would be nice but I don’t think we actually have any laws against corruption in this country. And even if we did would they get applied?

      • AmaKiwi 3.1.1

        We have one overriding law: Parliament is sovereign.

        In case you don’t understand, it means whoever controls parliament can do whatever they fucking want.

        • Magisterium 3.1.1.1

          No, the Sovereign is sovereign. That’s why she’s called the Sovereign. If parliament does whatever it fucking wants, it runs the risk of being dissolved by the Sovereign’s local representative.

          • AmaKiwi 3.1.1.1.1

            @ Magisterium

            Very funny. Are you just back from a visit to Planet Key or did you just forget to take your medication?

  4. RedLogix 4

    Even if 90% of Mossack Fonseca’s deal’s are legit, the problem for Key is that because of their total lack of transparency, no-one knows which ones are good and which ones are bad.

    These secret arrangements reverse the usual burden of proof; it has to be assumed that they are ALL bad. Any association at all with any secret tax-haven entity must be judged as criminal until provable otherwise.

    • Colonial Viper 4.1

      Good point.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.2

      Exactly. Essentially we need a law that says and and all dealings with tax havens is criminal and all assets of the person with such dealings will be confiscated.

      We would need a list of all countries that act as tax havens and we would have to not be a tax haven.

  5. vto 5

    Is that really what Mossack Fonseca has written on their t-shirts?

    “Because taxes are for poor people”?

    Unbelievable. Maybe it’s a set-up…

    • weka 5.1

      It’s photoshopped 😉

      • International Rescue 5.1.1

        It’s also bs. The ‘poor’ pay virtually no net tax in NZ. Everything they get comes from the middle class and the wealthy.

        • dv 5.1.1.1

          HOW do the poor avoid GST?

          • International Rescue 5.1.1.1.1

            They don’t. Nor do the non-poor. The non-poor just pay a whole lot more and don’t get the handouts.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Apart from the free education and healthcare and the rule of law and an educated workforce, and defending democracy and human rights against National Party values, no handouts at all.

              Let’s face it, the vast majority of us are grateful for it too. Why are you such trash?

              • International Rescue

                Oh you want some examples? Working for Families. Rent subsidies. Low cost housing. Transport subsidies. The list goes on, and on, and on, and…

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  No, you moronic numpty: I’m giving you examples of the subsidies the “non-poor” get. Why is basic English communication so difficult for you? It’s because your opinions are twisted by hate.

                  • International Rescue

                    And I’m giving you examples of subsidies the poor get.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      And you made another false assertion: that the wealthy get nothing back, when in fact they are the biggest beneficiaries.

                    • International Rescue

                      “that the wealthy get nothing back, when in fact they are the biggest beneficiaries.”

                      Really? The poor get the same as the non-poor. Plus many other benefits and subsidies.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      The wealthy get the same as the poor, plus vastly more money and capital and they don’t even pay tax. All the money and capital relies 100% on their living in a social framework that supports them: gardeners and cooks and drivers and politicians who must be bought and lawyers to hide their income.

                      Policing, a fire service, the internet, the rule of law, so that when their greed pollutes and destroys they can sometimes be forced (accompanied by cheers from the cheap seats) to hire even more expensive lawyers to duck their personal responsibility.

                      Not to mention (for a large percentage) Mummy and Daddy to inherit it all from in the first place.

                      What good choices they made 🙄

                    • International Rescue

                      “The wealthy get the same as the poor, plus vastly more money and capital and they don’t even pay tax. ”

                      Where do you get this stuff? Tax is paid on income. Wealthy people will have paid tax when they earned that wealth. Any capital they have has been earned by someone.

                      “All the money and capital relies 100% on their living in a social framework that supports them: gardeners and cooks and drivers and politicians who must be bought and lawyers to hide their income.”

                      Do you have any actual evidence for these delusions?

                      “Policing, a fire service, the internet, the rule of law…”

                      Is available to all, paid for primarily by high income earners.

            • dv 5.1.1.1.1.2

              SO
              no net tax in NZ. is untrue.

            • Lloyd 5.1.1.1.1.3

              The richest get the handouts from the Gnats, and the poor get poorer.
              If you want a healthy economy you need a government that realises that taxing the richest and letting the poorest in society spend those taxes, in the end,makes everyone richer.
              IR you need to change your mind-set and realise that redistributing wealth downwards is essential for a healthy economy and a healthy society. Sure you can debate detail as about how you tax the rich and how you distribute the wealth to the poorer in society, but you must realise that a government that allows an increase in the disparity between the richest and poorest in society is damaging everyone in that society.
              We have a government that has shown it is prepared to put the whole country in debt so it can give hand outs to the richest in the country, while cutting back on a wide range of social services for the poorest. The Gnats don’t even realise what an economy is, they think they are running a business, dohh.

              • International Rescue

                “If you want a healthy economy you need a government that realises that taxing the richest and letting the poorest in society spend those taxes, in the end,makes everyone richer.”

                That’s sort of what we do now. The rich and middle class pay virtually all of the tax in NZ, the poor pay virtually none, net of benefits.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  The rich and middle class: those who have benefited the most from there being a society in the first place. You ungrateful, tiresome, graceless cretin.

                  • International Rescue

                    Oh so in your world the rich and middle class benefit more than the poor? The same non-poor who pay their own medical insurance? Who pay higher school fees? Who most likely use less (subsidised) public transport? You jealous, one dimensional leftie.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      They most certainly do, especially those who are in a position to “minimise their tax burden”. You speak of one dimension while only looking at one side of the ledger – the social welfare budget.

                      I find it funny that so many of you wingnut cretins reveal yourselves in your projections about me. You cannot conceive that someone successful and happy would give a shit about the less fortunate.

                      Paging Dr. Dunning-Kruger.

                    • International Rescue

                      “They most certainly do, especially those who are in a position to “minimise their tax burden”. ”

                      The non-poor pay most of the tax. Fact. Whichever way you slice it.

                      “You cannot conceive that someone successful and happy would give a shit about the less fortunate.”

                      Actually I identify with that quite easily. I care very much about the poor, but my solutions empower people, yours enslave them.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Meanwhile, on Earth, poverty enslaves twice as many children (below 60% of median household income) as it did in 1984 (who benefited from that? Don’t answer! Look the other way! Call me jealous!), and your Daddy personally oversaw a law change which made it easier for child sex traffickers to hide their cash.

                    • International Rescue

                      “Meanwhile, on Earth, poverty enslaves twice as many children (below 60% of median household income) as it did in 1984 ”

                      That’s not poverty. Poverty is when people have no access to food, clothing, power, clean water. Capitalism is reducing poverty across the planet, which is why silly measurements like the one you use has been devised by the left.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Pathetic: faced with an unwelcome message you shoot the messenger. Shall we measure it by the increased rate of “third world” infectious disease admissions to NZ hospitals, or is The Lancet a hotbed of Socialism in your litany of witless derivative denials?

                    • International Rescue

                      “Pathetic: faced with an unwelcome message you shoot the messenger. ”

                      Pathetic. Failure to discern the difference between a comment about calculating poverty and shooting the messenger.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Preventable infectious diseases. Hospital admissions. The Lancet. Nah, blame the Left for pointing it out.

                    • International Rescue

                      “Preventable infectious diseases. ”

                      By preventable, you must include by actions of people themselves. We have a first world water supply, for example. This isn’t India. Meanwhile…
                      http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/rheumatic-fever.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      The Lancet cites poor housing conditions. They blame income inequality. You’ll deny that exists, of course, and then I can quote the OECD’s estimates of how much the rise in the GINI has cost us in lost potential and GDP, and you’ll move the goalposts, and generally be a tiresome cretin.

                      Can’t be bothered. You are motivated by hate, your arguments are lies, and even your criminal money laundering Daddy has (belatedly, reluctantly) acknowledged that there’s a problem.

                    • International Rescue

                      “They blame income inequality. ”

                      Newsflash…inequality is not the same as poverty. You raised the issue of poverty. There is poverty in NZ, but mostly self imposed. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it, but interviewing your keyboard and getting confused between inequality and poverty isn’t helpful.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      These findings support the need for stronger prevention efforts for infectious diseases, and reinforce the need to reduce ethnic and social inequalities and to address disparities in broad social determinants such as income levels, housing conditions, and access to health services.

                      Baker et al.

                      Keep twisting and lying, hatey boy.

                      Edit: mostly self imposed. Twisted hate speech, shithead: the unemployed crashed the global economy and doubled unemployment did they? What a loser.

                    • International Rescue

                      “These findings support the need for stronger prevention efforts for infectious diseases…”
                      Like the rheumatic fever program, free doctors visits for children under 13…

                      “and reinforce the need to reduce ethnic and social inequalities and to address disparities in broad social determinants such as income levels, housing conditions, and access to health services.”
                      More confusion. Inequality is not poverty. Inequality is an inevitable outcome of all economic systems, and is mitigated in NZ by a substantial income redistribution system (tax and WFF) and welfare system.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      So if there’s no poverty in New Zealand, cretin, who are these poor people you cite who are getting all the benefits? What a loser.

                      Back to the OECD and the rise in the GINI.

                    • International Rescue

                      “So if there’s no poverty in New Zealand, cretin, who are these poor people you cite who are getting all the benefits?”

                      You don’t have to be in poverty to be poor. In the NZ context ‘poor’ is defined as “lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society.”

                      I suggest two things for you:

                      1. Take a comprehension lesson. You are confusing terms rather too often.
                      2. Travel. Even a quick trip to Fiji will show you real poverty.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Tell that to people begging on the streets and families living in cars, and make sure to explain to them that it’s their own fault.

                    • International Rescue

                      “Tell that to people begging on the streets and families living in cars, and make sure to explain to them that it’s their own fault.”

                      OAB there is absolutely no reason for anyone in NZ to be begging or living in cars. There is ample financial and other support from Gvt and NGO’s. We have an increasing problem with people who are unable or unwilling to access this support, and that’s where I get involved, because that’s where I see the need. You can carry on thinking this is some fault of a neo-liberal experiment if you wish, but your delusions are impoverishing of the mind.

        • Puddleglum 5.1.1.2

          Hi International Rescue,

          First, relative to a lot of these people, ‘the poor’ includes those who most of us would consider high earners (e.g., earning over $100,000). They pay tax but are well out of the income league of these tax avoiders. So I took the t-shirt as referencing the perspective of the Mossack Fonseca ‘beneficiaries’.

          Second, the poorest people in society pay in ways far more devastating than through taxes. They pay in their health, their prospects, their community (which have typically been dismantled, sometimes, repeatedly, over the last decades), their mental state, the removal of their dignity.

          • International Rescue 5.1.1.2.1

            1. People earning over $100,00o pa cannot be poor, unless they are hopeless.
            2. What nonsense. In NZ there is no reason for the poor to suffer as you imagine. We have universal health care and education (being made even better by partnership schools). We have a comprehensive welfare safety net, with overlapping NGO support services. The only people who could fit you alarmist description are those who are simply too hopeless to help themselves.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2.1.1

              1. *whoosh* Looks like PG is going to have to use smaller words.

              • Incognito

                Nah, you’re wasting your time; International Rescue is channeling Bill English with the judicious use of the word “hopeless”.

        • Steve 5.1.1.3

          And why not?

          Or should we go back to workhouses?

    • Magisterium 5.3

      Do you know that the word “gullible” isn’t actually in the dictionary? Try and look it up.

  6. Ad 6

    We’ll need to see more of a polling impact to put either Key or the electorate in play. As PM I would call a snap election now rather than grind remains of term out.

    Not even Budget will clean this off media.

    Still, good to see Cunliffe delegated to actually do something.

    Hopefully he drip feeds stories over a 6 month spread.

    Water on rock.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1

      Cunliffe is the most able Labour caucus member to be doing this kind of high profile work. Why Little demoted him to unranked bottom of the caucus pile is unintelligible.

      Done right this will totally destabilise Key’s leadership.

      • Bob 6.1.1

        “Done right this will totally destabilise Key’s leadership”
        And there lies the issue. They should be attacking McLay for being swayed, once he steps down attack the PM for putting him in that situation.
        Why does the left (both Labour and the Greens in this case) always try to go straight at Key before they have anything on him!
        The left need to read ‘The Art of War’ “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”

      • AmaKiwi 6.1.2

        @ CV

        “Why Little demoted him (Cunliffe) to unranked bottom of the caucus pile is unintelligible.”

        Colonial Viper: There you go again trying to apply reason to the activities of a tribe. Tribes have their own social norms which they slavishly embrace, even when they are counterproductive and self-destructive. Penalties for violating the tribe’s norms are excommunication and banishment.

        I forgot, was I describing the Labour or National caucus?

    • Magisterium 6.2

      Not even Budget will clean this off media.

      Take a look at the Herald or Fairfax, it’s already been and gone.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.3

      As PM I would call a snap election now rather than grind remains of term out.

      As a voter I want the power of recall so that we can directly hold these MPs to account.

      • AmaKiwi 6.3.1

        Good luck Draco. It ain’t gonna come from Labour.

        NZ First has a platform calling for binding referendums, which would include recall elections.

  7. save NZ 7

    Great post. Good to see Labour and the Greens working on unravelling this disgusting government intervention on IRD to keep those in the 0.1% convicted polluters richer than ever and paying no NZ tax while buying up NZ real estate.

    • Richard McGrath 7.1

      0.1%? What happened to the 1%?

      • save NZ 7.1.1

        The .1 percent are the true villains: What Americans don’t understand about income inequality

        http://www.salon.com/2016/04/14/the_1_percent_are_the_real_villains_what_americans_dont_understand_about_income_inequality_partner/

        “We are the 99 percent” is a great slogan, but is it distracting our attention from a sinister reality? There’s strong evidence that it’s not the 1 percent you should worry about—it’s the 0.1 percent. That decimal point makes a big difference.

        Over the last decade, a gigantic share of America’s income and wealth gains has flowed to this group, the wealthiest one out of 1,000 households. These are the wildly exotic and rapidly growing plants in our economic hothouse. Their habits and approaches to life are far divorced from the rest of us, and if we let them, they will soon cut off all our air and light.”

  8. maui 8

    Well when the reporter Corin Dann presenting this on the news acts like a Government defence lawyer to sum up the piece, its a much easier ride for National. (News clip at top of page)

    https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/john-keys-lawyers-involvement-in-lobbying-government-over-tax-laws-revealed?autoPlay=4867168008001

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1

      Earlier this month Mr Key shrugged off the revelation that he had a cash deposit with Antipodes Trust, a company that specialises in foreign trusts. His office explained this away by saying the deposit was lodged with Mr Whitney, who had recently moved firms to the Antipodes Trust.

      However, Companies House documents show that Mr Whitney has been involved with the firm since its inception more than 20 years ago.

      Another one for Blip’s list.

      • Lanthanide 8.1.1

        A statement is only a lie if the speaker knows or suspects it to be false at the time it is spoken.

        The vast majority of Blip’s list, and this latest item, cannot be proven to meet that standard.

        • Paul 8.1.1.1

          Key’s defenders out in force.

        • AmaKiwi 8.1.1.2

          @ Lanthanide

          Basic ethics: There are lies of commission (when you know it’s not true) and lies of omission (when you withhold critical facts in order to deceive).

          Lanthanide, when you say, “A statement is only a lie if the speaker knows or suspects it to be false at the time it is spoken,” is it because you don’t understand ethics or because you want to mislead us with your lie of omission?

  9. weka 9

    Good work by Cunliffe and the Greens. Would love to see something at some point from both parties about reforming the OIO.

    Have to admit to a certain degree of shade frauds at the thought of increasing stress some people will be feeling. Decide to leave the autocorrect in place 😉

    • AmaKiwi 9.1

      @ weka

      “Would love to see something at some point from both parties about reforming the OIO. ”

      Whatever good they did would be immediately undone by the next Nats government. I’ll bet $100 on that.

  10. Nessalt 10

    Yawn. nothing here is the smoking gun you are trying to turn it into. It’s another straw perhaps. but not the final one.

    it’s hardly criminal any of this. And we still haven’t seen a single new zealand entity who has evaded taxes via mossack fonseca.

    • dv 10.1

      And we still haven’t seen a single new zealand entity who has evaded taxes via mossack fonseca.

      DUH
      Of course you haven’t. That is why it is all SECRET!!!

    • Hanswurst 10.2

      it’s hardly criminal any of this.

      Last I checked, that was exactly the problem.

      And we still haven’t seen a single new zealand entity who has evaded taxes via mossack fonseca.

      Rather a meaningless argument, since the issues raised from the very beginning have related to New Zealand being used as a tax haven by foreign entities.

      • Henry Filth 10.2.1

        Since when has New Zealand been the world’s tax policeman?

        • Puddleglum 10.2.1.1

          It’s OK Henry Filth, currently NZ is rather a long way from bearing that particular burden.

          You should be more worried about the burdensome ‘policing roles’ NZ has already heaved onto its shoulders.

          You know, all those other aspects of being a good ‘global citizen’ – the kinds of things that we supposedly relied upon to gain a Security Council seat.

          Why, for example, did we ever become the world’s policeman on whaling? Why did we ever become the world’s policeman for peacekeeping (almost literally some of ‘the world’s policemen’)? Why did we ever become the world’s policeman on global terrorism (you know, and agree to all those restrictions on freedom)?

          All entirely senseless commitments that have absolutely nothing to do with us, don’t you agree?

          Seriously, are the benefits of good-faith cooperation completely lost on you?

    • Ad 10.3

      “Not criminal” is not an appropriate measure for the conduct of a Prime Minister.

      I Am Not A Crook.

    • joe90 10.4

      And we still haven’t seen a single new zealand entity who has evaded taxes via mossack fonseca.

      9/5/2016 has a delightful ring about it….

    • save NZ 10.5

      Just the other day Trolls were trying to fill the blogs with how there was absolutely no connection with NZ in the Panama papers even though we are mentioned 60,000 times and convicted foreign polluters now have ended up with NZ farms…. yep mossack fonseca is only the 4th largest tax haven firm, there are three others much larger. This is the tip of the ice burg.

      As for “haven’t seen a single new zealand entity who has evaded taxes via mossack fonseca”

      NZ are still waiting to see John Keys tax returns…

      • AmaKiwi 10.5.1

        @ save NZ

        These tax haven trusts don’t go on an individual’s tax returns. That’s the beauty of them. You will need to somehow see all his financial assets. Only the GCSB and WikiLeaks can get that for you.

      • Henry Filth 10.5.2

        New Zealand has income tax returns, which do not measure wealth. Wealth is held in various vehicles, and any income is attributable to the vehicles, not an individual.

        Or ayou really as naive as to think that. . .

      • alwyn 10.5.3

        “NZ are still waiting to see John Keys tax returns”

        New Zealand is still waiting to see Andrew Little’s tax returns.
        After he promised to table them in Parliament too. Anyone know when he is going to carry out that promise? Or is it like so many of the things he says. Just a load of bs.

        • dv 10.5.3.1

          He did.

          • alwyn 10.5.3.1.1

            Rubbish. The material that was published was only the figures from the EPMU and then Parliament, whoever there pays him. of the salary and wages they paid him and the PAYE that was deducted.
            They weren’t his actual tax return.
            John Key could have matched him by saying that his pay as PM was X and that he was taxed at 33% on the salary. That would have matched what Little produced.
            It is conceivable that Little doesn’t have any other income at all but it hard to believe he doesn’t have even one bank account that pays some interest.
            Let’s see his real tax return, which he promised, not some of the numbers he might have used to prepare it.

            • dv 10.5.3.1.1.1

              Oops theres another pin head.

              • alwyn

                “Oops theres another pin head”
                I presume you mean your brain.
                Try doing a tax return where you put in ONLY your salary and wages.
                Ignore totally the $10,000 in interest and the $10,000 in dividends you have.
                Ignore, like David Shearer, the interest on the very large bank accounts you have overseas.
                Then see what the IRD are going to do to you.

                • dv

                  Nope dancing on the head of a pin Alwyn.
                  I thought an erudite person such as your self would have got the reference.
                  Sigh

    • mary_a 10.6

      @ Nessalt (10) … OK. We will wait to see what comes out on 10 May, when a whole lot of information from the Panama papers is released. Expected to be some expose`, with names etc being revealed!

      • Nessalt 10.6.1

        can’t wait. moment of truth. h fee etc etc

        now 10/5……..NEVAH FORGET

        don’t you feel just a little desperate pinning your hopes on these hail mary plays?

    • Muttonbird 10.7

      It’s another straw perhaps. but not the final one.

      -Nessalt

      All straws are welcome. There seems to be a never-ending supply, so keep them coming!

  11. mary_a 11

    Meant to include in my previous post. Excellent work from David Cunliffe and James Shaw. Great to see Labour and NZ Greens working well together on this.

    • Lanthanide 11.1

      But they’re not working together. David is talking about farm ownership and the OIO, and James is talking about Key changing government policy for his mate.

      They’re unrelated issues.

      • mary_a 11.1.1

        @ Lanthanide (11.1) .. the two issues might well be unrelated, but they are still connected, getting back to the same thing. Possible incompetence in the OIO and likely corruption in government, with both issues in turn pointing back at FJK.

        • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1

          But they’re not working together.

          • mary_a 11.1.1.1.1

            @ Lanthanide (11.1.1.1) … I concede you are not wrong there.

            • Sacha 11.1.1.1.1.1

              Quite. We can’t celebrate ‘working well together’ if it just means fortunately not standing on one another’s toes.

              • Lanthanide

                Arguably this is an example of them not working together for the best impact.

                As far as I can tell, both stories first came to light yesterday – Cunliffe’s in the morning news, and the Green’s sometime later in the day (I first heard it on the evening news, and again this morning on the radio).

                While there is some benefit to having two stories out at the same time, I think we would have had more of a lasting impact in the media news cycle if Cunliffe’s story was left to run today and this weekend, and the Green’s hadn’t come out with their story until Monday or maybe Tuesday next week.

                The MSM has a short attention span and largely prefer to concentrate on a couple of stories at a time. By working together and spreading these stories out over time, they could have had a bigger impact than what we’re seeing now.

        • Pat 11.1.1.2

          same issue from different directions…corruption

      • AmaKiwi 11.1.2

        @ Lathanide

        “But they’re not working together.”

        If you work for the SIS or GCSB, you can tap all their communications and know that. Otherwise your statement is pure conjecture.

        • Lanthanide 11.1.2.1

          By the same token, assuming they are working together is pure conjecture.

          And, I’ve already offered an opinion that suggests if they were working together, they would have delayed the Green’s story until this upcoming week, instead of having both stories appear in the news on the same day.

  12. whispering kate 12

    How the IOA didn’t bother to do a thorough search for good character of the owners of the Tannery who bought the farm in Taranaki, before permitting them to buy the farm, beggars belief. To neglect to do a simple Google search and find they had serious charges brought against them for polluting a river in Argentina and to discharge a “good character” pass to the buyers, requires some heads to roll and resignations to apply. Just how many more slack decisions have been made and permissions granted to buyers of our beautiful land is a disturbing prospect to think about.

    Now I read in the Listener this morning in Jane Clifton’s column that metropolitan real estate agents in Auckland are not unfamiliar with homes being bought with “suitcases full of the readies” – since when has it become acceptable for very big purchases to be bought with swags of bills of notes – surely the car yard franchises and real estate companies are complicit in this for not advising the Govt Depts who should be notified, that this is happening. Jane Clifton was referring to the 50/60 people that China wishes to have extradited for corruption – shouldn’t this area be investigated and the companies receiving this money charged for aiding and abetting.

    Methinks this is the beginning of the end of this current government and it can’t come soon enough, we will all be wearing nose pegs if this continues.

    • Magisterium 12.1

      How the IOA didn’t bother to do a thorough search for good character of the owners of the Tannery who bought the farm in Taranaki, before permitting them to buy the farm, beggars belief

      Somewhere buried deep in a filing cabinet must be the smoking gun, the memo directly from John Key ordering the IOA to look the other way. Finding this memo is now your holy quest.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1

        There are two possibilities.

        1. Key didn’t realise that the law change he personally lobbied for in 2011 would be used to launder money, in which case he’s incompetent and a little bit dull.

        2. He did realise, and went ahead anyway because…?

        The thing is, money laundering. As a direct result of the PM’s personal involvement (sly or bumbling, who cares?), we are now a money laundering enterprise.

        Keep twisting and turning and avoiding that to your heart’s content.

        Smoking schmoking.

    • Molly 12.2

      ” “suitcases full of the readies””

      That is very interesting. I’m pretty sure that banks will ask if deposits of cash are over a certain amount. I (vaguely) remember attending an anti money laundering session while temping at a merchant bank in London decades ago.

      Given the preponderance since then of electronic transactions, large cash transactions seem even more suspect.

    • International Rescue 12.3

      What makes you think they didn’t do a thorough search?

      http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/381366/oio-satisfied-land-purchase

      “While the OIO was conducting a search of its records, the OIO noted that Ceol & Muir’s registered office is at the Panama office of Mossack Fonseca,” the agency said.

      “The OIO has no evidence that would suggest that this connection with Mossack Fonseca is in breach of any laws.“

      • mickysavage 12.3.1

        You are boring …

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11631031

        OIO decides to reopen application.

        • International Rescue 12.3.1.1

          From your own source:

          “Yesterday it released a statement said it was confident due process was followed and emphasised the foreign buyers had to “be and remain of good character” for OIO approval.”

          Nothing has changed.

          • Lanthanide 12.3.1.1.1

            Yet they’ve re-opened the application.

            Since the events being discussed occurred before the application was originally lodged, the fact that they have re-opened it in order to further investigate these events just tells us that although “due process was followed”, the process itself was clearly flawed.

            • International Rescue 12.3.1.1.1.1

              Actually no, at least not until the application is processed.

              • Lanthanide

                If work, of any sort, has to be re-done, it tells you the work wasn’t done to the proper standard to begin with.

                I find it difficult that you would seriously try to argue that point.

                I guess work could be re-done for shits and giggles, but government departments don’t usually do things for shits and giggles.

                • International Rescue

                  No, it simply means new information has come to light. It may or may not affect the outcome. My point has simply been that this is an OIA investigation, yet it is portrayed as a hit on Key. Another silly bluster by the left.

                  • Lanthanide

                    “No, it simply means new information has come to light.”

                    Ahh, there’s you problem.

                    This information existed and was publicly accessible at the time the first application was processed. It is not “new” information, it is “old” information that they did not properly account for.

                    That’s the whole point. They didn’t do their job properly because they missed information that was material to the application that was easily publicly accessible.

                    This isn’t information that was in a locked toilet stall with “beware of the leopard” scrawled on it in a basement of a disused local planning office.

                    “My point has simply been that this is an OIA investigation, yet it is portrayed as a hit on Key. Another silly bluster by the left.”

                    Please show me anyone who is saying that the OIO incompetence is a “hit on Key”. I don’t recall anyone saying that. What I recall is various discussions about how much of a problem it is for the government that he leads, and that it raises questions about the competence of the party he leads to hold the government benches.

                    Perhaps you got this issued confused with Key’s personal dealings with a lawyer who successfully lobbied the government to change its review process over legislation that a government department had determined to be ethically questionable and needed review?

                    • International Rescue

                      “Please show me anyone who is saying that the OIO incompetence is a “hit on Key”.”

                      You’re kidding, right? Read the article. Then read the heading.

                    • Lanthanide

                      @IR:

                      I take it by your reply that you concede all other points I raised, and that you therefore agree the work wasn’t done properly the first time and that they didn’t do a thorough search.

                      “You’re kidding, right? Read the article. Then read the heading.”

                      I see that you have poor reading comprehension (not surprising given you tried to argue that a government departing re-doing their work is not a sign that they did the work poorly the first time):
                      “Mossack Fonseca bites National on the arse”

                      Nowhere does the heading say “John Key”.

                      As for the text, there are clearly two separate issues being discussed – both together are bad for Key, but the specific one we are talking about in this comment thread is the OIO one, which reflects on Key’s government and party, but not directly on him. The bulk of this part of the text is quotations from David Cunliffe, where he also does not mention Key once.

                      The OIO one points out that they have approved 99.75% of all requests since 2011 (I believe when the rules were last updated by this current government). In other words they’re a wet bus ticket.

                      So, nothing in the article talks about the OIO issue being “a hit on Key” like you claim, instead it talks about his crappy government.

                      I guess you have internally made a permanent conflation between “National party” and “John Key”. Pretty good demonstration that the party really doesn’t have anything else going for it…

        • Lanthanide 12.3.1.2

          Micky, you’re right, he really is boring. I’ve wasted a heap of time dealing with IR’s inability to read or think.

  13. Sabine 13

    Labour and Greens seem to be finding their common core? Good. 🙂

  14. John Key’s legacy: He unified Labour and the Greens 🙂

  15. Shifty 15

    Why is Shewan leading the review and not the IRD?

  16. Richard Christie 16

    I suspect that over the next couple of weeks the media and political focus on this issue and on Key’s actions will be intense.

    Yeah sure, given past history, I suspect MSM will bury it.

    • Murray Simmonds 16.1

      “Yeah sure, given past history, I suspect MSM will bury it.”

      Yep. Quite right, Richard Christie. I “can’t wait” for the “Look – over there – Pandas” moment,

      Any minute now.

      • Magisterium 16.1.1

        It’s a conspiracy. Every single employee of every newspaper, radio station, and website is in on it.

  17. Puckish Rogue 17

    I know that the lefties on here are desperately trying to find something, anything to pin on john Key, that the lefties think that this, finally, is the smoking gun that will lead to John Keys eternal damnation

    It isn’t and that’ll be reflected in the next few polls but keep up the good work

    • mickysavage 17.1

      So what do you think about the disclosures? Endlessly repeating “nothing to see here” is not going to work.

      • Bob 17.1.1

        Endlessly repeating “the PM’s corrupt” is not going to work.
        FIFY, you see the difference is, I have 7 years of evidence to back my version up.

        Let’s run through this story shall we:
        Ken asks John for help, John says not my portfolio talk to Todd, John carries on being PM…

        Wow, that will really stick to him! I can almost see the Teflon coating peeling off now! PR, how dare you say nothing to see here!

        • Hanswurst 17.1.1.1

          John says that Ken changed firms and happened to store John’s money at the new firm, a firm whose relationship to a current tax scandal is questionable. It turns out that Ken owns said company and has been associated with it for a couple of decades. The PM is obliged to be absolutely certain of his financial and legal dealings when explakning his actions to the NZ electorate. A massive inaccuracy (or imprecision at best) like that raises questions as to whether he is actually operating in NZ’s best interests. Whether his mishandling is by accident or by design is of no importance. He appears to be acting in a manner that is unfit for the office he holds.

        • Sacha 17.1.1.2

          .. Ken tells Todd that John said he should set up a meeting with Ken’s pals in the industry. Todd jumps like a good boy to do what the boss wants.

          Nope, can’t describe that as peddling influence. Nothing to see here.

          • weka 17.1.1.2.1

            Apparently endlessly repeating “the PM’s not corrupt” is going to work.

            • Bob 17.1.1.2.1.1

              The difference is, in this country people are raised on the legal presumption of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, running around shouting GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY with no proof just makes you look like the Labour Party

              • weka

                No-one’s being charged with a crime here and facing a jury and judge. Your hyperbole says a lot. Meanwhile in the rest of the world, people look at evidence long before proof is required. There’s plenty of evidence surfacing, various people are asking questions and wanting things investigated. That’s what happens in a democracy.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.1.2

        From a voters point of view, nothing.

        Now if theres some actual evidence that links John Key or another National MP then yes it absolutely is a big deal but at the moment all you’ve got is insinuations

        The people who vote John Key probably won’t change their votes over this or if they do they’ll vote NZFirst as a protest but they won’t vote Labour/Green, in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if National don’t receive a slight bump in the polls as people get tired of the lefts constant “boy who cried wolf” act

        • Hanswurst 17.1.2.1

          From a voters point of view, nothing.

          You already gave your assertions on an imaginary majority of voters’ point of view in the previous post. The question regarded what you think.

          Now if theres some actual evidence that links Shit-Arsed, Smellyfuck, Wanking Donkey Riding a Spasming Kangaroo or another National MP […]

          Linking them to what? There is already evidence of the link between Whitney and Key, and the emails show that Whitney asked Key about the issue, got a fairly cosy hearing with McLay and ultimately got the outcome he desired. As far as “actual evidence” goes, that’s about as “actual” as you can get. It isn’t proof of wrongdoing, but it’s essentially incontrovertible evidence that the PM was linked to one of the main lobbyists, and that said lobbyist received a very sympathetic hearing with McLay on Key’s recommendation. An impartial investigation is definitely warranted.

          • Puckish Rogue 17.1.2.1.1

            My opinion is this is a nothing, belt-way interest only story. Whiney asked Key and Key him nothing to do with him and directed him to correct person.

            http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/381366/oio-satisfied-land-purchase

            “The OIO has no evidence that would suggest that this connection with Mossack Fonseca is in breach of any laws.”

            Unless the left have more then its game over for this smear.

            • Hanswurst 17.1.2.1.1.1

              My opinion is this is a nothing, belt-way interest only story.

              So you still have no opinion on the issue, only on who’s interested. Typical tory obfuscation.

            • Robert Guyton 17.1.2.1.1.2

              “Puckish Rogue” endlessly presents the same claim; “this is nothing, Key’s support will rise”. He takes the position that everything Key and National does is clean, and mocks those who say otherwise. No one, however, believes that Key and his team are spotless and Puckish Rogue’s “superior” tone rings untrue. It’s not possible that he genuinely holds those shallow views so his reasons for being here on The Standard and holding so fast to his line have to be strategic and intended to destabilize and disrupt.

              • Puckish Rogue

                Can you prove anything illegal has occurred? No, then stop trolling

                • mary_a

                  @ Puckish Rogue … we will see what’s exposed next month shall we?

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    Well if its more of the same insinuations then it’ll be a big yawn, I prefer the results of the polls to gauge the public reaction

                    • swordfish

                      “I prefer the results of the polls to gauge the public reaction”

                      Well, my dear Puckers, the first post-Panama Papers Poll has come out and what do we find ?

                      (1) National down to its lowest rating in any Post-Election Poll.

                      (2) Opposition Bloc’s 54% = Highest in any poll since last Election

                      (3) Oppo Bloc’s lead over Govt Bloc by 8 points = Largest since last Election

                      (4) Govt’s 46% and Broader Right’s 47% = Lowest in any poll since last Election.

                      True, Labour’s also down. but in the scheme of things, that pales into insignificance. Since February, the Nats are down 5.5 points, whereas Labour have slipped by just the one point (Roy Morgans).

                      **************************************************************

                      Story breaks Early April (4th-5th), Shewan review announced April 11. Roy Morgan fieldwork = 4-17 April.

                      UMR Research Poll (April 14-18) says 57% “Concerned” / 23% “Not Concerned” about NZ’s reputation as a tax haven.
                      (40% of Nats “Concerned” / 36% “Not Concerned”)

                    • Paul

                      Thinks he’s clocked off.
                      Red delusion is now on duty.

                    • swordfish

                      More details from UMR Research Poll

                      46% said the Key Govt had handled the fallout “Poorly” / with just 21% saying it was being handled “Well”

                      52% said the Shewan review was an “inadequate” response to the issue.

                      All before the latest, much more specific and damaging revelations.

                • framu

                  illegal is a bit of a red herring – appearance matters as much as fact in govt

                  and thats what the rules say – not my opinion

                  • Bob

                    You are spot on there framu, and the appearance of the opposition trying to pin this on John Key when his part in this was to say “I’m not the minister, talk to Todd McLay” just goes to re-enforce that this is nothing but a personal smear campaign by an opposition who has nothing else to do with their time.

                    They do it time and again and it always backfires!
                    H-fee, living in a leafy suburb, blind trust, now this…insanity

                    • framu

                      no – your 100% incorrect re: what the cabinet manual has to say on this

                      keys lawyer meets key > key (according to the lawyer) says that they are looking into trusts > lawyer lobbies govt > lobby group gets what it wants

                      thats the chain of events that causes the appearance of a conflict of interest

                      stop painting those who are central to this as the victims – they are grown adults who should be able to either explain them selves or stand up to a look from the relevant bodies

                    • Paul

                      Bob.
                      Just another paid or deluded supporter of the uber rich.
                      Loves tax havens.

                    • Bob

                      Paul, I am neither paid by, or a supporter of the super rich, and I particularly hate tax havens (on a global scale) and (on a side note) a big fan of the UBI.

                      What I am a fan of is strong opposition, the issue I have is it has been so long since we have had one I am starting to give up hope. This obsession with trying to pin absolutely everything to John Key directly is starting to do my fucking head in!
                      The opposition have a chance here to take down Todd McLay and pin his demise back to the PM putting him in a compromised position. Instead, as usual, the opposition have gone off half cocked, got two steps ahead of themselves and will once again fall flat on their face.

            • International Rescue 17.1.2.1.1.3

              The problem for the left is that they have falsely cried ‘crisis’ or ‘corruption’ so many times that no-one is listening anymore. The ‘moment of truth’ is now in political folklore.

              There is nothing in this story, yet Labour and the Greens are doing their usual histrionics. They just don’t learn that Key is immensely popular, and they’ve been trying this personal attack agenda on him for a decade and failed every time.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                That must be true, because the IRD is full of Lefty Greeny types.

                Meanwhile, money laundering for crims and terrorists is profitable enough for you to look the other way? Your lies are showing 😆

                • International Rescue

                  Do you have any evidence of this money laundering by ‘crims and terrorists’? A real example? Anything?

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    Of course I have evidence, hatey-boy: my employees, the Inland Revenue Department, mentioned it specifically as a reason not to relax the rules.

                    Also, dupe, the adverts from the money-laundering law-firms.

                    Also, loyal unquestioning authoritarian team member, my employees, the Justice Department:

                    Money laundering also makes it harder for authorities to trace the origins of money from crime, prosecute offenders and confiscate their proceeds.

                    Money laundering involves three stages.

                    Placement: placing cash proceeds from crime into the financial system. For example, depositing the proceeds in a bank.

                    Layering: splitting the criminal funds into various deposit accounts to hide their origin.
                    Integration: withdrawing the layered funds and bringing them back together in one account or multiple accounts so that they appear legitimate.
                    There are many ways to launder money, some of which are sophisticated and complicated. The most common examples include ‘smurfing’ or structuring, currency smuggling, exchanging transactions, purchasing assets, and gambling.

                    ‘Smurfing’ or structuring: depositing cash at various institutions in amounts less that the amount that must be reported to government, and subsequently transferring them to a central account.
                    Currency smuggling: physically moving funds across borders to disguise their source and ownership, often to countries with strict bank secrecy laws. The funds may be moved by mail, courier or body packing.
                    Exchanging transactions: buying foreign currency that can be transferred to offshore banks.
                    Purchasing assets: purchasing cars, boats and real estate in someone else’s name, then selling them and depositing the funds.
                    Gambling: buying gambling chips, then redeeming them in a different currency or denomination.
                    Effective anti-money laundering laws make it easier to detect and investigate money laundering activities by establishing links between criminal activity and the funds they generate.

                    Also, why are you cuddling up to crims, trash?

                    • International Rescue

                      “Of course I have evidence, hatey-boy: my employees, the Inland Revenue Department, mentioned it specifically as a reason not to relax the rules.”

                      Ah, evidence? Not warnings about something that might, maybe, could, possibly happen. Evidence of it actually happening.

                      Cough up.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      No crim-cuddler, if I had direct evidence I’d take it to the Police. There’s a reason the IRD warned against your Daddy’s money laundering plan. The reason being that money laundering is a thing.

                      You’ve got your tongue stuck so far up the Prime Minster that you can ‘t abide the fact that he personally lobbied for the money laundering rules to be relaxed.

                      So far, the best you can do is pretend that no-one’s taken advantage yet. That’s because your opinions are twisted by hate.

    • Hanswurst 17.2

      On the contrary, the thing about this one is that nobody seems to be needing to try especially hard at all.

    • weka 17.3

      “I know that the lefties on here are desperately trying to find something, anything to pin on john Key, that the lefties think that this, finally, is the smoking gun that will lead to John Keys eternal damnation”

      Citation needed. Go on, give us 3 credible links to lefties saying this is the One that will bring Key down. If you can’t do that, I’ll happily spend the rest of the day calling you a liar, because here you are again making shit up, about the left, and using it to push your CT-esque agenda.

      • Puckish Rogue 17.3.1

        and I care about your opinion of me why exactly?

      • alwyn 17.3.2

        How about these examples?
        From the original post, at the beginning.
        “Maybe there is a God and if so she has to be a left winger. Latest events are trashing John Key’s carefully constructed persona …”.
        And at the end
        ” I suspect that over the next couple of weeks the media and political focus on this issue and on Key’s actions will be intense. And his Teflon coating will be shown to have been scoured.”

        Then from Heather at comment 2
        “Things are starting to unravel”
        or Colonial Viper at comment 6.1
        “Done right this will totally destabilise Key’s leadership”
        or Whispering Kate at comment 12
        “Methinks this is the beginning of the end of this current government and it can’t come soon enough”.
        They all look to be examples of what PR is proposing, don’t they?

        • weka 17.3.2.1

          None of those things suggest the belief that this latest scandal is The smoking gun that will damn Key forever. Which is what PR was claiming.

          Of course many people think that Key’s teflon is wearing off, and that it’s a reasonably significant point in the wind down of his career and National’s goverment, lots of analysis on that. But that’s not what PR claimed or based his line of argument on. He told some outright lies about what lefties are doing, and he did this intentional misleading in order to push a certain agenda.

        • Puckish Rogue 17.3.2.2

          Apparently sarcasm and hyperbole is unknown to the left…

          • alwyn 17.3.2.2.1

            Hyperbole is very well known to the left.
            They just don’t realise that most of their comments about Key and the current government involve a very large dose of it.
            How about from mary_a on Cunliffe
            “And why was that? Because FJK and his corrupt mob of miscreants, used a compliant msm to take David Cunliffe down, knowing full well what he is capable of doing to them”
            She probably thinks that that is simply an uncontentious statement of fact with no hyperbole at all..

    • Bearded Git 17.4

      Those polls already showing the Gnats at 42.5% and plummeting?

    • swordfish 17.5

      Obviously, it’s all been a series of ghastly misunderstandings, Puckers.

    • Lloyd 17.6

      PR, just keep repeating “John Key is not a crook, John Key is not a crook, John Key is not a crook………”

  18. esoteric pineapples 18

    I remember a friend working for the public service saying a few years back that all sorts of people could walk straight into National ministers’ offices that normal people couldn’t. This sort of situation is probably endemic to this government.

  19. Hami Shearlie 19

    Now it’s obvious why David Cunliffe should have stayed as Leader – He is feared by Steven Joyce and all the Nats, and rightly so. He has done a great job on exposing this so far, as have the Greens. I have no doubt there will be more, much more, and joy of joys, Parliament is back next week!!! Looking forward to Key passing out due to excessive sucking in of the breath!!

    • Puckish Rogue 19.1

      Let me explain something to you (it won’t help but I’ll try anyway)

      National do not fear The Cunliffe. National took out The Cunliffe because The Cunliffe was leader of the opposition. National took out Goff because he was leader of the opposition, National took out Shearer because he was leader of the opposition and National will be taking out Little because he is leader of the opposition.

      National are taking them out because of their position not because they’re feared.

      • Pat 19.1.1

        strange….I always thought that Labour selected its own leaders….guess the Nats must have more control over the Labour Party than i understood.

        • Puckish Rogue 19.1.1.1

          Judging by how often Little sticks his own feet in his mouth I wouldn’t be surprised if Little was a National sleeper agent

          • weka 19.1.1.1.1

            I think you mean Shearer and the Labour membership dealt to him.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 19.1.1.1.1.1

              Hami, did it escape your notice that he led Labour to its worst electoral result since the 1920s?

              Why would that scare anyone?

              • mary_a

                @ The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell (19.1.1.1.1.1) …

                You post … “Hami, did it escape your notice that he led Labour to its worst electoral result since the 1920s?

                And why was that? Because FJK and his corrupt mob of miscreants, used a compliant msm to take David Cunliffe down, knowing full well what he is capable of doing to them.

                What’s happening right now with Cunliffe’s recent work, questioning some of the rot involving NZ in the Panama papers, is evidence of this! Hence the reason, NatzKEY don’t want him anywhere near the Labour leadership!

                NatzKEY has good reason indeed to be very scared of David Cunliffe!

                Cunliffe is doing msm’s job of sourcing details, informing NZers, because mainstream media is too gutless to publish anything which is likely to incriminate its beloved leader “honest” John!

                • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                  The public hates Cunliffe. By all means make him leader again.

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    No, no The Cunliffe only needed a couple more months in the job then the public would have loved him

                    • adam

                      Your scary face is showing.

                    • Lanthanide

                      What David Cunliffe needed was some fair and even treatment from the MSM, which he never got.

                      Case in point: “I’m sorry for being a man” – in CONTEXT that actually was a reasonable thing to say, but out of context it sounds insane. That’s why the media repeated it out of context.

                      Case in point: the Dong Hua Liu story was a complete beatup, where the media failed to get an affidavit for his claims of donations (which were later shown to be grossly exaggerated and spun), followed up by Cunliffe being crucified for a purely procedural letter that his electorate office had written 11 years ago. At least one prominent MSM reporter has publicly apologised for their involvement in the letter ‘scandal’.

                      What also hurt Cunliffe a lot was The Internet-Mana party, which was a case of collateral damage, no matter how much distance he tried to put between Labour and them.

                      Cunliffe was also a victim of circumstance with Nicky Hagar’s book. No-one was expecting that bombshell, but Labour had already embarked on a policy platform where they wouldn’t outright criticise National or John Key. That left them unable to capitalise on the scandal as much as they should have. A strategic mis-step by Cunliffe there, but Dirty Politics was a black swan event that no-one could anticipate.

                    • A good summation of the circumstances Lanthanide.

                      If we’re talking desperation to see a leader brought down, the best example is that 6 month period prior to the last election when much commentary in the media seemed remarkably keen on depicting Cunliffe as some kind of an exceptionally sneaky, tricky, lying, arrogant person, apparently undeserving of a ‘fair go’.

                      Whatever motive such commentators had it was remarkably unprofessional behaviour.

                  • mary_a

                    @ The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                    You post … “The public hates Cunliffe …”

                    Are you able to support your claim with some substantial evidence?

                    Msm virtually ran David Cunliffe out of town, with nasty, petty statements, obviously intended to turn the public against him, making him seem insignificant and foolish!

                    Go back and read some msm headlines and stories in 2014, leading up the the last election, if you can’t remember! One from NZH’s John Armstrong in particular, calling for Cunliffe’s resignation, over an 11 year old letter he wrote. When he retired, Armstrong said he regretted writing that column! Then there was the pathetic piece about Cunliffe wearing a red scarf for goodness sake! And don’t forget at the same time, Fairfax media through STUFF etc, was also putting the boot into Cunliffe!

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                      Are you able to support your claim with some substantial evidence?

                      The 2014 general election.

                    • leftie

                      The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell whilst you still ignore the valid points Lanthanide and Mary_A wrote, the election doesn’t show “the public hates Cunliffe.”

                    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                      OK, leftie. Why do you think fewer people voted for Cunliffe than any Labour leader ever since Ava Garnder was born?

                    • leftie

                      Lanthanide and Mary_A already told you, The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell.

                • Chuck

                  I do believe Cunliffe would do a better job than Little of further reducing the Labour vote in 2017.

                  While Cunliffe is the pin up boy to the left of Labour…he is toxic to middle NZ (where the votes are that Labour needs to pick up).

                • Magisterium

                  FJK and his corrupt mob of miscreants, used a compliant msm to take David Cunliffe down, knowing full well what he is capable of doing to them.

                  David Cunliffe is by all accounts a talented intelligent man.

                  He is also the worst political campaigner in the world.

                • International Rescue

                  “Because FJK and his corrupt mob of miscreants, used a compliant msm to take David Cunliffe down, knowing full well what he is capable of doing to them.”

                  No, that’s just delusional. Cunliffe lost because the voters saw through the veneer and realised there was no substance. We have seen what Cunliffe is capable of, getting Labour thrashed.

        • Puckish Rogue 19.1.2.1

          Flibbertigibbet

          • adam 19.1.2.1.1

            So down to sexist insults now are we Puckish Rouge.

            • Puckish Rogue 19.1.2.1.1.1

              You like to cry wolf don’t you

              http://www.dictionary.com/browse/flibbertigibbet

              • adam

                You mean some else who has read Shakespeare.

                Scared and lying again ah Puckish Rogue – just to much of a habit.

                Here another definition

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flibbertigibbet

                And the context it is generally used in, is to degenerate young women – just letting you know – scared one.

                • Puckish Rogue

                  So taking your link we see:

                  “Flibbertigibbet is a Middle English word referring to a flighty or whimsical person, usually a young woman. In modern use, it is used as a slang term, especially in Yorkshire, for a gossipy or overly talkative person.”

                  – Usually being the key word, usually not always

                  but lets move on shall we:

                  “This word also has a historical use as a name for a fiend, devil or spirit. In the 15th-century English morality play The Castle of Perseverence, the Bad Angel addresses the vice figure Detraccio (also called Backbiter and the messenger of the World) as Flyprgebet (line 1724). In Shakespeare’s King Lear (IV, i (1605)), he is one of the five fiends Edgar (in the posture of a beggar, Tom o’ Bedlam) claimed was possessing him.”

                  “he is one of the five fiends Edgar claimed was possessing him”

                  But wait theres more:

                  “Flibbertigibbet similarly features as a name in a local legend about Wayland’s Smithy. According to the tale, Flibbertigibbet was apprentice to Wayland the Smith, and greatly exasperated his master. Eventually Wayland threw Flibbertigibbet down the hill and into a valley, where he was transformed into a stone. Scott associates his Flibbertigibbet character in Kenilworth with Wayland Smith.”

                  Still more hes in there or didn’t you read that far?

                  Also amusingly enough:

                  “By extension it has also been used as a synonym for Puck. Through its use as a nickname for a character in Sir Walter Scott’s Kenilworth, it has gained the meaning of an impish child”

                  If you’re going to post a link in defence of your argument you should probably read it first 🙂

  20. Karen 20

    This from Richard Harman is interesting (although his last sentence about the Shewan investigation is a bit of a joke). According to Key all foreign trust register with the IRD only it seems more than a third don’t.

    http://politik.co.nz/en/content/economy/827/How-the-foreign-trusts-operated-in-the-shade-away-from-Inland-Revenue's-gaze-Inland-revenue-Antipodes-Trust-Ken-Witney-trusts-tax.htm

  21. vto 21

    If they specialised in that area, for sure, that is entirely apt

  22. alwyn 22

    Green Leader Shaw says
    “”Ordinary people, those who care about child poverty or about the environment and want the Government to change its policies, do not get this kind of access or this kind of immediate response to their concerns,” Mr Shaw said.”
    I wonder if he proposes to introduce the actions he is asking for where his own party is concerned?

    For example I suppose he will have to say things like.
    “Our MPs will not meet with organisations such as Greenpeace as that would give them preference over ordinary members of the public”.
    “Our MPs will not attend any meetings at which Green Party members are present or talk to any party members as that would give our party members preference over ordinary members of the public”.
    “Party members will not be allowed any say on party policy as that would give them preference over ordinary members of the public”.

    Why not tell the truth Shaw? Tell the public you think it is fun to attack John Key and to throw s**t at him and at anyone who has anything to do with him. We have been taking lessons from little Andy.

    • mickysavage 22.1

      Wow whole lot of irrelevant stuff and false equivalences there alwyn. Next thing you will say is because there is no actual evidence of Key drowning kittens there is nothing to see. How about addressing the allegations.

      • alwyn 22.1.1

        What allegations? All I see here is a long string of smears with nothing to back them up.
        Even Cunliffe says “He said he was not claiming Ceol & Muir had done anything wrong”.
        The other rubbish appears to be saying that because someone knows John Key they shouldn’t be allowed to express an opinion on what Governments should do.
        Did the Labour Party in Clark’s day refuse to talk to people who had opinions on public affairs? I certainly hope not. Our MPs should listen to everyone.
        This is a blog which has a post complaining that Talleys are trying to silence a union. You attack that but appear to be in favour of gagging anyone who doesn’t happen to be on your side of politics.
        Just why don’t you want people to be able to write (e-mail) a Minister?

    • weka 22.2

      Blah, blah, blah, the Greens do it too 🙄

      Not even going to bother explaining why your argument is false. If you can’t see the difference between open lobbying by public interest groups and covert crony capitalism, then there’s no point in discussing it. Of course, you also haven’t posted any evidence to back up your claim about Shaw and Greenpeace.

      • Bob 22.2.1

        “If you can’t see the difference between open lobbying by public interest groups and covert crony capitalism, then there’s no point in discussing it”
        Like Pharma lobbyists meeting with opposition leaders, then said opposition leaders lobbying for Pharma products to be subsidised? Is that the type of thing you are referring too?

      • alwyn 22.2.2

        “you also haven’t posted any evidence to back up your claim about Shaw and Greenpeace.”
        And just what do you think is this “claim” I am making that needs evidence? All I did was give examples of things Shaw would have to do if he was going to do the things he is demanding National do. In other words, “Don’t listen to anyone”.
        I am quite sure that Shaw is never going to come out with such a statement so there will certainly never be any evidence that he is going to propose the same things for his own party that he expects from National.

        • weka 22.2.2.1

          Shaw isn’t demanding that National never listens to anyone. I was going to give you some credit for not telling outright lies about the Greens and instead using inference, but you just couldn’t help yourself could you.

          You’re talking a load of nonsense. There’s no valid comparison and your argument today is particularly stupid. I’m guessing you understand that because you can’t even defend it properly.

      • Paul 22.2.3

        Seems like alwyn isn’t the only person to receive the CT reminder to blame other people. Frances Cook, in this appalling article, writes that the Greens can’t be trusted because they didn’t give her a scoop. She seems to th ok that is worse than tax havens, corruption and dodgy money.

        The msm is part of the problem.
        The comments below her article, though, are priceless.

        Here is one of my favourites.
        ‘I thought given the headline this was a story about how John Key cannot be trusted, turns out it was a bleat about news organisations not getting exclusives fed to them from political parties.
        When are you lot going to stop blaming the messenger and actually scrutinise the actions of dear leader?
        Who cares who got your story first? If journalists in this country actually did any investigative journalism then we wouldn’t need the Green’s to be digging this up and doing your job for you! This is self serving rubbish, try focusing on the guy running the country!

        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11630702

        • Paul 22.2.3.1

          Another riposte to Frances Cook’s ghastly Herald article.

          ‘So you’re trying to turn a story about just how corrupt this government is into ‘Bad Greens’ for exposing it. Maybe the media should have done some investigative reporting instead of just waiting for the press releases to regurgitate. John Key has survived harassing and physically assaulting a waitress for months, he’s survived rubbing little girl’s hair in his fingers, he’s survived having ministers accused of corruption. Maybe now that it’s all to do with money people will finally pay some attention and see that he is not fit to be running the country.’

          • Paul 22.2.3.1.1

            And another..

            ‘”We are concerned that there appears to be a sudden change of view by the IRD in respect of their previous support for the industry. I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this and he advised that the Government has no plans to change the status of the foreign trust regime,”

            This passage from the email clearly indicates that the PM was wholly aware of the situation with foreign trust and what the governments position and intent was before his lawyer than met with the (so called) minister in charge.

            IF this was an isolated incident then it would be fine however this is part of a much larger pattern of behaviour since becoming the PM and shows our laws are for sale to the highest bigger, need we list all the dodgy dealings the PM has had personal hand in?

            The fact is this foreign trusts business benefits no-one except a few lawyers back pockets but hurts the countries reputation. Even the tax man sees very little benefit so for the sake of our countries reputation we need to fix this issue quick smart.

            IT is also very interesting that this publication takes (yet another) faux pas by our PM and turns it into an attack on the opposition instead!’

            • weka 22.2.3.1.1.1

              And PR and the shill brigade wonder why some of think the tide has turned.

              • Puckish Rogue

                No you misunderstand me, I mean of course the tide is turning, once a political party gets into power theres only one way for it go and that’s out

                I just think that National has more then enough left in the tank to win the next election, helped in no small matter by a pretty useless opposition

                So really we agree on the main point, Nationals on the way out but the only difference is the time frame

                • weka

                  “No you misunderstand me, I mean of course the tide is turning, once a political party gets into power theres only one way for it go and that’s out”

                  Sorry but that’s just pathetic, especially as you’ve made a career out of crowing about Key and National’s apparent popularity and how they will go on an on. It does show a level of desperation though.

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    They’ll go on and have four terms sure and they’re still very popular (calling swordfish and his stats and why Andrew Little is actually more popular than John Key) but of course they’ll lose eventually

                    But not before John Key gets his fourth term

                  • Paul

                    What a sad career. Shilling for the 0.01%.

    • Paul 22.3

      The Defender of the 0.01% speaks.

  23. Bill 23

    Isn’t IRD like the rest of the civil service apparatus and meant to sit kind of independent from government?

    December 4, 2014 – McLay’s staff writes to IRD to say that “after further reflecting on the discussion yesterday, he expressed some concern that one of the options that will be presented in the report to him before the end of the year would be the removal of the foreign trust regime.” A senior IRD official replied saying they will “bear this in mind in how we write the report.”

    • weka 23.1

      Ministers do give policy directives to their departments (think the raft of legislation and policy that Bennett foisted onto the MSD/WINZ). The wording of the IRD bod is interesing though. It does suggest that McClay wasn’t giving policy direction so much as hinting at what should be done. In which case yeah, looks like political interference.

      (can’t find the context for the IRD quote because the OIA report isn’t searchable. Are they always like that?)

  24. indiana 24

    This will end up like Kim Dotcom’s moment of truth…

    • weka 24.1

      You mean another milestone in the now very long saga of John Key’s corrupt career?

      • Puckish Rogue 24.1.1

        More like this: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+damp+squib

        The more you know 🙂

        • weka 24.1.1.1

          http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/shill

          By all means keep up with the spin, and the rest of us will continue to understand that there is no silver bullet, just a long line of disgraces that National will eventually collapse under.

          • Puckish Rogue 24.1.1.1.1

            They surely will but not before the 2017 election

            • adam 24.1.1.1.1.1

              Puckish Rough is scared – his hero’s got caught lying – again.

              • Puckish Rogue

                That’s nice dear

                • Paul

                  The supporter of tax havens for the super rich pontificates.

                  • alwyn

                    “the super rich pontificates”.
                    Really? I haven’t seen him supporting the Roman Catholic Church and its leaders during their tenure.
                    And doesn’t the Pope take a vow of poverty?
                    I realise that the church is (obscenely) rich but I didn’t think you could say it about the Pope or the Bishops personally.

        • Robert Guyton 24.1.1.2

          It’s another damp squib, insinuates “Puckish Rogue”. Same message, on repeat. There are now a great number of smouldering issues for Mr Key, all producing smoke. People, on smelling smoke, think, “fire”. Despite all that “Puckish Rogue” and handy-chaps like him are doing, “it’s nothing! NOTHING!!!”, the smell of smoke is in everyone’s nostrils and the primal reaction that creates cares not a whit for witterings like, “nothing to see here”.

          • Puckish Rogue 24.1.1.2.1

            Or people will see that, once again, Labour are shouting wolf and eventually people tire of the Little boy that cried wolf

            • Bob 24.1.1.2.1.1

              (ref. Election 2014.)

            • Paul 24.1.1.2.1.2

              9th May.

              • Puckish Rogue

                Ok I admit that I have no idea about what that’s referencing specifically

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    Ah I see you’re referencing H-Fee 2.0 or is it KDCs moment of truth redux?

                    So please explain why this worries me because I’m quite baffled…unless you think this will implicate john Key?

                    I mean it won’t obviously

                    • adam

                      The fear is showing.

                      It’s not all about Key you know. It’s about a national led government who let criminals and corporations defraud other nations of there tax income.

                      And I think we all get you love John Key Puckish Rouge. Grow your hair out, then put it in a ponytail, and he may just show you the love you so desperately need…

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      🙂

            • adam 24.1.1.2.1.3

              Your so funny when you are scared.

              • Puckish Rogue

                Ok I’m intrigued, scared of what exactly?

                • Paul

                  You enjoy behaving like a total prat, don’t you?

                  • Puckish Rogue

                    I really don’t get why you think I’m scared. Since 2007 the left have tried and failed to smear John Key, politicians have flown to other countries to find dirt and failed, a hacker spent millions to find some dirt and failed, John Campbell tried all his tricks and failed etc etc

                    Yet you think this going to be different and that I should be scared, well I’ll tell you this, I’ll be scared if or when the left manage to find something, anything substantial

                    • whateva next?

                      and is it a full time job, or a zero hours contract? Do you get commission base on how many people you can wind up?

                    • Puckish Rogue

                      Its more a labour of love really

                    • Sacha

                      “politicians have flown to other countries to find dirt and failed”

                      Party staff, but yes, same result.

                    • Lloyd

                      Just keep repeating, “John Key is not a crook, John Key is not a crook, John Key is not a crook,,,,”

                    • Lloyd

                      Just keep repeating, “John Key is not a crook, John Key is not a crook, John Key is not a crook,,,,”

                • Roflcopter

                  PR, I wouldn’t bother…. it’s like arguing with a creationist.

            • Robert Guyton 24.1.1.2.1.4

              “Or…”
              I don’t think so.
              Key and co are skilled at stripping any and every “incident” down into its tiny parts until there’s “nothing to see”, but where that clever ploy falls over is when the regularity and number of those incidents becomes apparent, that is, the room fills with smoke.

              “FIRE”

            • weka 24.1.1.2.1.5

              “Or people will see that, once again, Labour are shouting wolf and eventually people tire of the Little boy that cried wolf”

              Translation – Crosby Textor’s memo this morning said to focus on attacking Labour because they’re still an easier target than the Greens. Don’t worry if the conversation isn’t about Labour, just keeping parroting “Labour are stupid”.

              • Puckish Rogue

                Well yes Labour is an easier target (whats up with that?) but really the more the left something is there and it isn’t the public will tire of it

              • Reddelusion

                Some truth to that last statement weka

              • Richard McGrath

                Read your own words – Labour are being accused of crying wolf, not being stupid, though it seems likely that both are true.

      • indiana 24.1.2

        I look forward to Oliver Stone making a movie about this…

  25. b waghorn 25

    National s fans are blowing flat out today I see, it must be abig job blowing the stench of corruption coming from this one A! pucky bob and al

    • Paul 25.1

      And they have no case.
      Just diversions and petty little squabbling.

      • Puckish Rogue 25.1.1

        Sounds like you’re describing Labour

        • Paul 25.1.1.1

          When do you clock off?

        • weka 25.1.1.2

          Puckish Rogue, liar and shill on duty.

          • Paul 25.1.1.2.1

            Reading his comments reminds me of the puerile oneupmanship some kids engaged at in school, when we were about 11.

            • Reddelusion 25.1.1.2.1.1

              Stop fibbing paul, you left school well before you where 11😀

            • Richard McGrath 25.1.1.2.1.2

              “Reading his comments reminds me of the puerile oneupmanship some kids engaged at in school, when we were about 11.”

              What, like “liar and shill on duty”?

        • whateva next? 25.1.1.3

          so how much do you get paid for doing this? That is a genuine question.

          • Puckish Rogue 25.1.1.3.1

            More then what begging letters for $2 or a sausage sizzle could come up with matey

            • dv 25.1.1.3.1.1

              Interesting, so you are paid to troll TS

              • Puckish Rogue

                It would make my day if someone broke the news that there are paid trolls on political blogs and used me as an example

                • alwyn

                  Public announcement.
                  “puckish Rogue is a paid troll on political blogs”.
                  There, does that make your day?

                  I get my evidence, and I won’t use the word “facts”, from what the nutters on the left claim.
                  Given the accuracy of their claims over the last decade though I wouldn’t put any money on the truthfulness of this one.
                  Public announcement withdrawn.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke

                    I’ve always hoped that, despite all the hard evidence to the contrary, it isn’t happening. It’s just too pathetically sad and desperate.

                    Nick Naylor wannabes 😆

                    Edit: seriously, paying someone to say nice things about you. It’s just creepy.

                • Richard McGrath

                  Puckish Rogue is one of a team of trolls working around the clock and funded by the Koch brothers and Monsanto with the funds channelled through Mossack Fonseca… as I’m sure David Cunliffe will reveal on May 9

            • whateva next? 25.1.1.3.1.2

              I have a real job, something I will look back on with pride, you should try it………. matey.

  26. Nick 26

    PR is right about 2 things….

    1. Everyone needs to do a better job to nail Key. He’s a slippery customer.

    2. They surely will fall

    • Paul 26.1

      I think you are 6th defender of tax dodging and tax havens on this thread.

      • Chuck 26.1.1

        Your blind hatred of John Key / National does not allow you to see how examples like this at best only have a small bearing on non belt way NZ’s (which is 99% of us).

        Over play it and it,s like pissing into the wind…not a good idea.

        • Paul 26.1.1.1

          You support these tax havens?

          • Chuck 26.1.1.1.1

            Tax havens have been around since the 1800’s so nothing new here.

            Sovereign countries are free to decide if they want to be a “tax haven”. Hence tax havens are here to stay.

            In some cases people can have a legitimate use for them…in other cases they are abused and used by criminals (be it drug dealers or corrupt politicians etc).

            Swiss Bank secrecy is nothing like it used to be…they cave in when the US ask for customer information. OECD task force are working on making tax havens more transparent.

            Do I support tax havens…no.

    • adam 26.2

      No one cares about john key, it’s this corrupt national government which is the problem – Oh and the tax evasion, the lies, and the bribery. Did I mention the lies?

  27. bernard 27

    Dirty John,the creature of the polls

    • adam 27.1

      bernard, forget Dirty John, it’s the national government which is the problem. Dirty John is just one man, it takes a party to wreak a nation.

  28. Ben 28

    The good people of NZ are of course very interested in these startling revelations, yet the most read stories on the Herald are about:

    1: A stolen phone
    2: An avocado
    3: Hamburgers on Lincoln Rd
    4: The Warriors drinking
    5: Airplane toilets.

    The above is a sad indictment of the state of the NZ media, and people in general, but the Left has cried wolf so many times that people just don’t listen anymore. The headline was dramatic, but reading the story reveals that Key’s lawyer asked him about trusts, so Key said speak to the minister responsible. All the rest is trying to join dots with links that are tenuous at best.

    • Bob 28.1

      Bingo, of course the Herald will be blamed for people not reading about these revelations, it’s MSM bias!
      I really do hope the left block get the shit together and win an election soon, at least then I can see an effective opposition in parliament again!

    • leftie 28.2

      Ben, don’t forget to add the fluffy all warm and fuzzy feel good animal stories as well.

    • Sacha 28.3

      Sportsers drunk-dialling for an avo burger from a plane, you say? Now that’s news.

    • Whateva next? 28.4

      Nation of sheep beget a government of wolves, as they say

  29. Paul 29

    A lot of energy is being burned by right wing trolls to kill this story.
    Wonder why?

    • leftie 29.1

      Paul, the rw trolls are in a panic, that’s for sure.

      • whateva next? 29.1.1

        Throwing money at it by paying their thugs, like they do with anything that interferes with their opulent lifestyle, sad twats.

      • Reddelusion 29.1.2

        Shuddering in fear, we only come here for entertainment, don’t over play your relevance

        • Whateva next? 29.1.2.1

          Entertainment? Are you that lonely, or do you have so little imagination, or are you paid?
          Sad or disgusting?

  30. [Not] maxxkey 30

    this is nonsense just like dirty politics you lot are left wing nutters this will only make john key more popular nobody who is anybody pays taxes .john key lies to hid the truth behind new Zealand fire economy with out the bull shit new zealand would be Greece who whats the truth nobody so stop exposing the lies you all need to practice self censorship

    [r0b: You will need to choose a different name if you want to keep commenting here]

  31. International Rescue 31

    1. It is not the Overseas Investment ‘Organisation’.
    2. Ceol and Muir went through the full approval process and have broken no laws. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/381366/oio-satisfied-land-purchase
    3. Once again a dirty politics hit by Labour on private individuals has bitten them.

    It amazes me that Labour never learn.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 31.1

      It’s all Labour’s fault that your Daddy launders money.

      • International Rescue 31.1.1

        Do have any proof of anyone money laundering?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 31.1.1.1

          Yes: it’s all over the news: the Prime Minister personally saw to it that the money laundering rules were relaxed, and you can’t admit that because you’re twisted by hate.

          • International Rescue 31.1.1.1.1

            I’m asking for evidence that this actually happened. A real life example of some terrible individual laundering their ill gotten gains here. “It’s all over the news” is quite pathetic.

  32. Joy 32

    Well done to Team Labour – king hit!

    OIO re-opens review of farmland sale
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11631031

  33. Drowsy M. Kram 33

    The NZ CORRUPT CLASS can’t conceal the INTERNATIONAL criminality revealed by the (tip-of the iceberg) Panama papers. Their political cronies can survive this in the medium term only if media lickspittles succeed in normalising corruption in the public mind. That’s a meme the NoToSeHe commentators are spinning.

    Won’t work (despite the best efforts of NAct, NZ is not yet a Banama republic), but good luck to them – every self-serving utterance is worth a chuckle, every vacuous jibe gives me a lift; the Panama papers are a gift that keeps on giving.

  34. Gruntie 34

    Good ole lyin’ John

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.