There was a conspiracy. Just because you label it a conspiracy doesn't make it false.
Often an insitutional analysis will be called a conspiracy theory so it can be dimissed out of hand.
| What the Report Said | Why this is wrong |
|---|---|
| The Winebox transactions showed no evidence of fraud | The Commission was unable to get documents from the Cook Islands that related to the tax deal
How can Sir Ronald Davison categorically state that there is no evidence of fraud when he has not seen all the evidence. The answer is that obviouly he can't and his report is wrong. |
| Evidence was heard from European Pacific | Peter Brannighan, former employee of European Pacific was paid hush money to not reveal what he knew and to lie to the enquiry. Remember the 37 incidences of amnesia. "I have no recollection" "I do not recall" "I cannot remember who was at the meeting"
Then we find he had recently received a $500,000 interest free loan, with no repayment date. Oh, but that wasn't hush money. Oh no. That sort of loan is common, isn't it? Ha ha. Yes, your former employer often gives you loans after you have left the business. |
| Ronald Davison had advice from experienced staff. Even though he has no personal experience of tax investigations he can rely on his staff for guidance. | Yes, even though Ronald Davison was not personally competent to head this inquiry, that would not be a problem with the capable staff at the enquiry.
But his report blithely disgreads most of the advise of his own counsel. That is, the report disagrees with the views of the only people who heard all the evidence and had the competence and experience to judge it. |
| Winston Peter's allegations were false | The truth of Winston Peter's allegations were not the point of the inquiry. Even the QC for the Commission admitted that.
Look at the efforts Winston had to go to to get any sort of enquiry at all. Even one with narrow terms of reference and an incompetent head. Obviously his statements were political and may even have contained an element of hyperbole. They should not be considered in the same way as formal police charges. Yet Sir Ronald Davison falls into this basic trap as though he is senile and should never have been called out of retirement. Despite having to breach his own terms of refrence to do so, Sir Ronald took the view that the letter (and not the spirit) of Winston Peter's allegations were the key to the inquiry. No wonder the report is so flawed. New Zealanders want to know about how we were ripped off by businessmen evading tax, not whether Winston Peters charges were legally correct. |
| Davison's own exhaustive enquiries found no evidence of fraud, so why should anyone challenge the IRD or SFO for agreeing | The arrogance of this view is astonishing. Remember Chas Sturt, who now wants compensation, advised his minister that he had found no evidence of fraud in the winebox documents, one month before STARTING the investigation.
There was talk of sacking him for misleading and deceiving parliament. How could a competent head of a commission of inquiry then find him "blameless and exonerated".
Maybe of Winston Peter's specific charges. But the terms of reference were to assess the competency of the SFO. And Sir Ronald has announced that a SFO head that deceived the highest court in our land is "exonerated"?
One has to ask whether Sir Ronald is himself incompetent or guilty of corruption to draw such a conclusion.
We believe there is undeniable proof of fraud and we will bring it to you soon. In the meantime just note that even Sir Ronald's trained, competent staff believed there was fraud. The desperate efforts of the parties to suppress everything shows there was evidence of fraud they wanted (and succeeded in) hiding. And Sir Ronald makes his claim without having seen all the evidence. |
| The officials at the SFO and IRD have been cleared of criminal conduct | Not true. No evidence was found of criminal conduct. That does not mean they did not commit criminal actions. They have not been cleared. The Commission simply could not find any evidence, based on its narrow terms of reference.
Consider these facts:
You decide whether any of this could be considered evidence of criminal conduct. Remember it was not the Commission's job to actually prosecute. If there was any evidence at all, then it would be for the police to press charges and a real court of law to decide. |
| There was no tax avoidance or fraud | The report contradicts itself. If Sir Ronald believes there was no fraud, then why is he pushing for the abolition of legal privilege in respect of tax matters? This is a major change.\
The only conclusion is that the fact that lawyers can keep tax discussions confidential means that they can hide the evidence of illegality. |
| The parties involved made honest deals | Then why did they try and have the entire Commission heard in secret? |
Why didn't the headlines scream "Knighted businessmen rip off NZ taxpayer in 'legal' scam"?
Why does the report not include examples of such despicable behaviour? Why is there no moral indignation? Because Sir Ronald is afraid that if he told the truth his report would be challenged by lawyers leaving his reputation in tatters.
Why would they do this if it was clear and obvious that they had done no wrong; they their actions were competent and legal?
Obviously they would not. They knew that their actions were marginal and that any independent observer could find against them.
If they themselves are so unsure of their position, with their own biased viewpoints and the full knowledge available to them, then obviously they are guilty as charged.
They were able to get away with it because of hiding the wood among the trees, high powered lawyers and the incompetence of the head of the inquiry. More on this later.
After all, New Zealand is meant to be a democracy. ha ha ha
It is a safe bet that shredders were working overtime.
It is worth noting that the Commission of Enquiry would have exonerated Adolph Hitler of war crimes because
Don't you agree that we could all do with that sort of support from our exonerated senior civil servants.
If I owed $140 million in taxes due that I had not paid, what are the odds they'd come gunning for me?
Because I can't afford expensive lawyers to tie up the system.
Should someone who has diverted money in this way be honoured in the community with a Knighthood? Is that the sort of society we want to develop? Shouldn't a knighthood be a mark of honour and not that you have made appropriate donations to the appropriate political party.
Why was so much time devoted to this aspect when we want to hear about the central issues that affect New Zealand.
Is investigative journalism dead in New Zealand?
Despite "we will come back to the wiring diagram later" we did not. Instead an attempt was made to try and put Winston Peters on the spot. Poor use of air time.
They new the winebox documents would be released today but they run out of time for any analysis and yet continue with a re-run of an American sit-com at 7pm. Duoh!
The question is how much the NZ taxpayer was diddled, but Home Improvement takes precedence.
Should TV3 hand back, as a matter of honour, their awards for news coverage, after this patheic coverage.
The NZ taxpayer has spend $12 million on this enquiry. Doesn't it warrant proper coverage, or has it all been dumbed down for us?
There was a conspiracy. Just because you label it a conspiracy doesn't make it false.
Often an insitutional analysis will be called a conspiracy theory so it can be dimissed out of hand.
From the start of the enquiry Winston Peters challenged the narrow terms of reference. He was not alone, and their narroweness is his undoing.
But Sir Ronald has conveniently gone beyond the terms when it suited him, and not complied with him when it would not favour the outcome he sought.
Sir Ronald was charged with "inquiring into whether Inland Revenue and the Serious Fraud Office had acted lawfully, properly and competently in relation to dealing with the Winebox transactions".
But right from the start the pool was muddied. Jim Bolger stated the enquiry "would offer New Zealanders whose names had been maligned in Parliament a chance to put their case." This should never have been the purpose of the inquiry. But in a burst of new age sensitivity Sir Ronald has incorrectly taken it upon himself to deliver a forum for senior civil servants to be exonerated, while ignoring the issues in the terms of reference that he was supposed to address.
Get your own Free Home Page