Four false declarations
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:24 am by David FarrarI’ve now managed to get a hard copy of the White Report (shame on the Government for not having it online) and the 107 pages give far more detail than what has been reported.
What has struck me, and has been unreported, is that Tamihere is found to have made not one, not two but four false statutory declarations. They are:
His 1998/99 tax return
His 2000/01 tax return
His 1999 general election expenses return
His 2003 Ministerial declaration of interests and assets
Now people should consider how this fits in with Helen Clark saying he has done nothing wrong and has a strong future.
As I have said before I personally like John Tamihere and agree with a lot of what he has said. But John has a carelessness which borders on recklessness when it comes to certain things. One could say one or two wrong declarations was bad luck, but four of them? And from a Minister, MP and former CEO and lawyer?
When you combine this with the earlier court case over signing something he should not have, there is a pattern of behaviour.
I’ve had several people say they know Tamihere has done wrong, but because they like what he has to say, they don’t think the wrong doing is important. I can sympathise with that view, but can not agree. One can not have two standards of behaviour for MPs we like, and MPs we do not like.
No tag for this post.
December 23rd, 2004 at 10:43 am
I wonder if Helen stands by her spin, “We all have lapses, myself included and everyone in this room included, they are not hanging offences.”
If so, then we should all ingnore our obligations to accurately complete Statutory Declarations. If four times is OK, what’s wrong with 10 or 20 times.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 10:55 am
If Clark could she would drop Tamihere like a hot potato but if he goes then he could potentially bring the govt down (1 seat majority, lose a by-election to Turia). You are correct, although I would suggest the behaviour is in fact reckless to the point of culpable. He has told porkies, several of them, and sadly that means he has to go.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 10:58 am
Good point – he was obviously having the tax system on and as such having us on. If he doesnt deserve to be hung he at least deserves a public flogging.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 10:59 am
Why isnt this tax evasion? And what are the chances of JT turning up on the Maori Party’s list?
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 12:08 pm
It isn’t tax evasion because he had no liability to pay the tax. The Trust should have (a) paid the tax and (b) provided JT with a tax deduction certificate. Tamihere, like any employee, should have realised his tax dedcution certificates were incomplete and declared as much. But it’s not normal practice to charge the employee in these circumstances. I assume the other three false declarations are of a similar character in which case they don’t create any constitutional barrier to his reinstatement.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 1:27 pm
The question is did Tamihere knowingly provide an incomplete or misleading tax return. If he did then its evasion. The Trust certainly you might say committed fraud. Did Tamihere aid and abet the Trust in its possible crime by filing a misleading tax return in exchange for a higher six-figure payout? I am sure its all spelt out in the report.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 2:29 pm
My other half is an auditor for IRD and going from what was on the news she said he is going to cop a lot of penalties from IRD and they are now under an obligation to audit him.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 4:10 pm
In finding his actions almost acceptable Clark appears to be judging the dishonesty of J>T> by that of herself (paintergate) Her electorate officials {corngate) Marion Hobbs (rent frtaud)and Dalziel fibbing.Instead she should compare it with the innocense of Dover Samuels.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 5:40 pm
Even Russell Brown’s usually high b.s. tolerance is being pushed a little too hard by Tamihere (http://publicaddress.net/default,1763.sm#post1763). And he just can’t help himself, but if he’s promising payback he better bring the goods. I suspect most of us just feel slimed by someone who promised better…
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 5:54 pm
He is an officer of the court and to make 4 false declarations is not only a criminal offence but would also see him removed from the role of Barristers and Solicitors. I cannot see how he can get around that frankly. His problems with the law are only just beginning, I find Helen’s defence of him incredible but his political standing must be very high. Tio say White cleared him is just amazing. White simply made finding of fact, he is not a court and wisely left any legal conclusions to the Court.
Vote:December 23rd, 2004 at 8:03 pm
Tim, good point, I understand he lost his Practicising Certificate some time ago, but yes, I think he has done enough to bring the profession into disreprute which is grounds for being struck from the Roll.
Vote:December 24th, 2004 at 11:20 am
Just a thought. If, and I know it’s a big if, but if, “The Seventh Offender” were to sack him, would Tariana and Pita actually want to take the risk of having crooks on the books? Surely they would look a dozen times more praiseworthy if they were seen to be declining such trash. If so, why don’t Maori Party get the full mileage out of it now (well, first thing in the New Year) and make a pre-emptive announcement rejecting him. Thoughts?
Vote: