Ensuring the small parties pay back
Regardless of whether or not political parties agree with the Auditor-General’s decisions on what expenditure was illegal, refusing to pay money back is not an acceptable option.
You either seek a judicial review of his findings, or you respect the rule of law. Many taxpayers do not agree with IRD decisions on what they owe, but they don’t get to decide whether or not they pay.
NZ First, United Future and the Greens are looking very hestitant about paying back their respective debts of $157,934, $71,867 and $87,192.
I have a proposal. If any party refuses to pay their money back, a group be formed to fund-raise the exact amount owing, and that money be spent during the election campaigning against that party specifically on the issue of their putting themselves above the law. For United Future this campaign would focus on Ohariu-Belmont, and for the other parties it would be targetted either nationally or in seats where their Leader is standing.
I have no doubt we could raise the money. There are a lot of very very angry people about. And we don’t just want paid advertising – we want people attending every Meet the Candidate’s meeting in every electorate getting up and reminding people about any refusal to pay back illegal funds. We want letters to the editor etc. We want the major issue for voters considering supporting those parties to be this issue. We want every candidate for those parties to have to defend the non-repayment of illegal taxpayer funds.
Labour have finally done the right thing (in paying it back – does not nullify doing it in first place though), and it is unacceptable that the other parties do not do the same.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:54 am
You could always just campaign for National?
Oh sorry I forgot, wiping out the smaller parties is your only chance of gaining office.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Normally if you buy something with stolen money, you don’t get to keep it.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:00 am
Perhaps you could just campaign for National?
Oh sorry I forgot, wiping out the small parties is your only chance of forming a government.
Better be sure it would work though, coalition talks after an election would be very interesting if it did not.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:04 am
That’s a very good point, David:
Even if Labour does pay it back, what about the possibilility that they spent above the limit for the election anyway? (regardless of the legitimacy of the source of the money)
October 13th, 2006 at 11:05 am
“Labour have finally done the right thing (in paying it back – does not nullify doing it in first place though)”
Not quite.
Labour have *said* they will pay it back. Whether they do, in full, and when of course are other matters entirely.
Its not quite time to “move on” just yet.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Agreed! I’m in.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I’m not sure if seeking JR is “not” respecting the rule of law. In fact I would have said quite the opposite – you are correct, however, that it is not simply a matter for the parties concerned to decide that they think they are right and Brady is wrong so they won’t pay it back.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I hope the media holds them to account. Some are showing gross inconsistency with the “principled” platforms they stood on.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:12 am
How does Sonic always respond so fast?
Is he another one of these dole bludgers sitting at home while most of us sit here at work?
October 13th, 2006 at 11:15 am
David
Labour have finally done the right thing.
How can you say such a thing?
By paying it back they have admitted their guilt – but
No they have not doing the right thing.
They did not resign when the Chief Electoral Officer cited them for corruption.
When the Solicitor General reaffirmed that finding.
When the Auditor Genearl reaffrmerd that finding.
How about a referendum to remove all rights to hold public office in perpetuity from all those involved?
October 13th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Interesting post by “Rex”, who is, of course, not affiliated with any political party. Though does have his tongue firmly down the pants of Labour:
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,3597.sm#post
October 13th, 2006 at 11:26 am
The Auditor-General’s Song (To the Tune “It is My Will Sublime, from the Mikado)
A more humane Auditor-General never
Did in NZ exist,
To nobody second,
I’m certainly reckoned
A true parliamentiarist.
It is my very humane endeavour
To make, to some extent,
Each evil MP ever
A running river
Of harmless merriment.
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each MP that’s Bent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
All prissy Dunn United sinners,
Who chatter and bleat and bore,
Are sent to hear sermons
From mystical Germans
About obeying electoral Law.
The MP for Mangare, who with his immigration villainies,
In the background continues to lurk,
Shall be sent to the shower,
To tile, hour after hour,
And be paid just 2c per year for his work.
The lady who buys an election
With money from the public tax take,
Shall be ejected “tout suite”,
from her electorate seat,
And be for ever branded a fake.
The idiot who, in parliament chamber,
threatens to dish personal dirt,
We only suffer
To be thrown in the gutter
And be beaten (though not seriously hurt).
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each MP that’s Bent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
The financial quack who wearies
With tales of countless budget surplus,
His dollars, I’ve enacted,
Shall all be extracted
And forthwith returned to the Tax payer (That means Us).
The Green Party Members
Who with our money have taken liberty,
To the Antarctic waste
shall be taken, Post Haste,
And be left there, to forever roam free.
The poodle who any one catches,
His doom’s extremely hard —
He’s made to dwell —
In a dungeon cell
From the spotlight he’s always barred.
From there he makes extravagant speeches
All unheard shall be his eloquent calls,
With his claims shown untrue,
as is his twisted world view,
And Helen still keeping his balls!
My object all sublime
I shall achieve in time —
To let the punishment fit the crime —
The punishment fit the crime;
And make each MP that’s Bent
Unwillingly represent
A source of innocent merriment!
Of innocent merriment!
October 13th, 2006 at 11:27 am
This is very simple. The validating legislation could include a clause making the amounts owing as a debt due to the Crown. If a Party wishes to contest the advice of the Solicitor General and the AGs figures then they put the amount in escrow and they can argue the thing through the Courts. NZF say they have the money well then they can put it into ecrow NOW and argue it through the Courts. The rest can pay up and be given until the end of 2008 to do so.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:33 am
If the Dear leader is convicted of electoral fraud will she be able to stand for office come 2008?
This woman has reached a new level in arrogance she shows no regret, I’m ashamed she represents New Zealand. What has happened is corruption, without a doubt this election was brought. I would like an exchange of goods as this government is damaged goods.
PS Sonic, shouldn’t you be manning the cake stand.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I had to laugh at that comment on another thread about Labour supporters being asked to pay the bill for the overspend. They sure love giving their money to Helen & Cullen.
Sonic doesn’t have time to man a cake stand (probably ‘person’ the cake stand in his parlance). He should be out looking for a job.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:48 am
I’m in David I agree completely any party that doesn’t pay it back campaign against them on that stand point force them into a niche that accept it and will support them anyway
October 13th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Taxpayers that don’t pay when they are given a demand get bankrupted. In fact if the bill is due and they don’t have the money then they are insolvent. Maybe the receivers should be called in for the Labour Party and any other party that doesn’t repay. Also MPs shouldn’t be allowed to leave the country until they pay.
October 13th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Brady is on the take. Or at the least he has participated in a pre-planned partisian ambush. He should be sacked for gross political activity.
This is whole affair now stands revealed as a profoundly corrupt setup. There is no sane possibility that National managed to “get it right” and every other significant party “got it wrong”.
This is going to get VERY ugly.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
now the catch cry / slogan will be “when will you pay it back” – if it is going to take a year (or more) such a slogan will ensure the issue just carries on and on.
saying that, well i am a generous sort of person – and I feel that it is my civic duty to contribute – however I do have reservations about their performance and service as employees, so with this in mind, and in a fashion of the tradition in the USA where by for tipping if you are not pleased – you tip the waiter a penny.
I contributed 1 cent to their big whip around. That is all the theiving bastards deserve. I hope processing the 1 cent costs them much more than that. If you to want to contribute one cent go to http://www.thebigwhiparound.com -
October 13th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
This creepy, cycnical attempt to financially wipe out your opposition, because you cannot win elections any other way…is downright evil. Pursue this and it will lead you to a place of your worst nightmares.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
RedRag, this has nothing to do with destroying them financially, it is about the fact that they used this money illegally and as such should pay it back. I don’t see anything evil about making a THEIF pay back what they STOLE, and in a court of law they would probably end up behind bars for such an extravagant amount. So lets think about this would you rather they were bankrupted or everyone who knew about the spending went to jail???
And what is my worst nightmare? I’d love to know how this will lead to that. What the Labour party will use more personal attacks?? cause that worked so well against Don, his leadership polling went up after the affair.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
RedRag,
You are talking about the Labour party, Right?
If so, then I completely agree. What Labour did was to cynically use PULIC money to outspend its rivals, because that was the only way it could get back into power.
It was definitely evil.
The country has been experiencing some of its worst nightmares. Thankfully, it is Labour that is about to reap what it has sown.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Before you all get too high and mighty have a careful read of http://www.publicaddress.net/default,3597.sm#post , he raises the very interesting point – what about all the other non-advertising spending that came from Parliamentary Services but contributed to ALL the parties campaigns, e.g. travel, speechwriters, etc ? Is that not also ‘stolen’ to use your emotive language?
October 13th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
“I contributed 1 cent to their big whip around. That is all the theiving bastards deserve. I hope processing the 1 cent costs them much more than that. If you to want to contribute one cent go to http://www.thebigwhiparound.com – ‘”
in my opinon they deserve nothing, except to get voted out next election. If you really want to be generous I got a better donation idea, A one way air ticket to North Korea for Helen Clark. She might like the system of government they have there.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Bello:
Before you get too high and mighty, I’ve got to wonder why ‘Rex’ is (as far as I’m aware) the only anonymous posting that’s ever appeared on Public Address. Very, very strange – is there any reason why full disclosure isn’t possible…
October 13th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Bello:
He also defeats his argument before it all begins by trying to claim that
“This is a superficially appealing couplet of arguments, but a misleading one. When working out whether something I wish to do is legal, I might ask myself: “Have similar actions been considered legal by relevant authorities in the past?” Indeed, if relevant authorities had treated a certain action as legal over many years, it would seem capricious if I were then prosecuted because they all turned out to be wrong. So, while blithe ignorance of the law is not a good defence, ignorance because everyone who should have known something was unlawful didn’t consider it such is a pretty good one.”
Why does this help to show the sh*te he is talking? This is exactly what we all face with the IRD everyday. He is pointing to instances of people not yet having been prosecuted for something, not instances of the law having been applied in a case to prove the interpretation; which is the analogy he is so desperatly groping for. He obviously missed the Transpower debacle at present where they are going to court to get clarification of the meaning of the laws around compensation. Thats right – that is what we all have to do; unless there is case law the *absence* of case law proves nothing in your favour.
And I cannot turn to my lawyer, accountant nor even a previous statement by the IRD as a defence against an IRD ruling. Labour and their supporters are just p*ssed and floundering that at least one public servant has actually had enough balls to make Labour operate within the law in the same manner as the general populace.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
The AG has used an arbitrary and flatout partisian interpretation to retrospectively de-stabilise all parties but one. He is bent…has has to go.
All this emotive and arrant language is flat out lies and calls for “fresh elections” is an evil attempt to grab power. The livid ranting right is dragging the NZ political scene into a malingnant and divisive place.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
The only ranting I can see is coming from RedRag and Bello and neither of them seem to be ‘right’ (in either sense of the word).
October 13th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
RedRag:
It is typical of Labour’s position that all you can do to defend yourself, and Labour’s illegal activity in using taxpayer money to buy an election, is to defame public officials who dare to stand up for constitutional and fiscal propriety.
Labour stole money. Kevin Brady called them to account. You say he’s bent. We expected that kind of smear from Labour, actually.
In your world, everybody who disagrees with Labour’s self-serving interpretation must be exterminated.
The problem for you is, the more you try to defend the indefensible with such disgraceful tactics, the more your own support base bleeds away from you.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
“The livid ranting right is dragging the NZ political scene into a malingnant and divisive place.”
Im sorry RedRag, but Labour did this long ago, I believe they are attempting to bring everyone down so they can compete “on a level playing field”
October 13th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
“The AG has used an arbitrary and flatout partisian interpretation to retrospectively de-stabilise all parties but one. He is bent…has has to go.”
Trying to say the AG is the corupt one now?
“All this emotive and arrant language is flat out lies and calls for “fresh elections” is an evil attempt to grab power”
No, the need for fresh elections is to right the wrong that was done by labour stealing large sums of taxpayers money ($800 000)for electioneering. The election outcome was very close and had labour stuck to the rules and not put out the pledge cards the outcome might be a little different. Maybe the reason why Labour and RedRag don’t want fresh elections is they are afraid they might loose.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
At some point ( if not already ) this whole mess ends up becoming self destructive for the parties involved ( Labour getting out signifies this ? ), surely the answer is for a clear set of new rules agreed for prior to the next election.
Then any party not wanting to pay back the current overspend gets their cap for the next election reduced by the appropriate amount.
Speaking personally I’ve had a guts full of the whole thing & would rather the focus was on something productive.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
You would think that the Nats might remember what happened the last time they dragged politics down into the gutter with their “thieves” and “corruption” smears.
I wonder how the EB are getting on?
October 13th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
I think we show give credit where credit is due. The Greens have stated this morning that they will pay all the money back. That shows that at least a number of them have principle. They have not only agreed to pay the money back but have do so with a lot better grace than Labour. They will do be getting by vote of course but I think they are entitled to some credit.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I like your thinking David however one small problem I see is the Poodle. That ranting fool will more than likely not be standing next election as he will be swanning himself in New York or where he and Helen have agreed he may be going. So there is the end of NZF. And just on the Poodle/Spiderman, can anyone tell me the last court case he actually won??
October 13th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Chuck,
Credit where credit is due. The Greens are not only going to pay the money back, but the debt is being split amongst the 6 Green MPs. So the ones that personally benefit are the ones paying. It is nice to see some MPs taking a bit of personal responsibility. Likewise Rodney for his personal cheque.
Labour, NZ First, United Future- tardy. Pay up and take your medicine.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Sonic, GET A JOB.
You have way too much time on your hands.
You may even enjoy tearing yourself away from this carry on for a while.
Every time I see your name henceforth I take the time to remind you to get a job, for encouragement and motivation.
Seek is a good place to start.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
I agree red rag, Kevin Brady has shown his true political colours with his massive about- face on the interpretation of the rules. Their can be no doubt that blue blood courses through his veins. In fact It wouldn’t surprise me if National had worked in clandestine collusion with this card carrying Tory in order to bring the current government into disrepute.
It would be interesting to look at 2002 election funding where Bill English and go are reputed to have acquired and used vast amounts of money in a similar way – but this will never happen.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
As I’e said before 10c, the job I have is just fine thanks.
Do try and at least pretend to say something useful old bean.
x
S
October 13th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
All of us, from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other expect our leaders to demonstrate integrity. In fact it’s normal, if a little unfair, for us to demand of them levels of integrity that exceed our own. That’s why 100’s of speeding tickets are issued every day without a so much as a blip on the news radar… but when one of those ticket is issued to a member of the police force, judiciary or government leadership is makes the headlines – guaranteed.
What we have in front of us is an abuse of power and trust placed in our government, with that abuse, or should that be contempt, more notably directed towards supporters of labour and its coalition partners. The cries for a fresh election are really an opportunity for Labour supporter to re-affirm their faith in the party that has let them down.
Any labour supporter who feigns contentment with the corruption that we’ve all witnessed simply telegraphs their own fear that a majority of NZ’ers may not wear the same ideological blinkers.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
OOOOH pj
Do you think that the AG should conduct an audit of the Pol Sci faculties of NZ Tertiary Institutions for evidence of extreme waste of taxpayer’s money and bias in the education system?
BRW aren’t institutions places where they put the “less able” for their self protection?
October 13th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Phillipjohn:
You’re one step closer to political oblivion. Start developing a taste for dog shit. You will be eating a lot of it from Labour as it desperately tries to cling to power between now and the next election.
It would be really good, when Don Brash is Prime Minister, if he could encourage useless crap-bags such as yourself to get a fucking job.
Instead he will have more urgent priorities, like running the country, which Labour have been neglecting since the election. He can start with returning some of the $25 billion in surpluses that Labour have racked up in the last three years.
I think a $5 billion per annum tax cut in his first year is perfectly affordable. Then he can set John Key onto eliminating wasteful government spending on such trifling shite as what you do at university.
If you’re at all smart, phillipjohn, you will use your time between now and the next election to make yourself employable.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Philip John, it appears you are trying to accuse the AG Kevin Brady of being biased. Are the solicitor general of being bias as well? I would rather trust public servants than socialist politicians who have a long history of spin.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
iiq374:
Actually, yes you can raise assurances or advice given by IRD as a “defence” to an IRD ruling.
Lord Templeman said in R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte Preston [1985] 2 All E.R. 327 (a case where the IRD gave a taxpayer an assurance and then reneged on it):
“In principle I see no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to judicial review of a decision taken by the commissioners if that decision is unfair to the appellant because the conduct of the commissioners is equivalent to a breach of contract or a breach of representation.”
There are numerous other cases where this principle has been applied. Eg, the Eng CA said in Lever Finance:
“If an officer, acting within the scope of his ostensible authority, makes a representation on which another acts, then a public authority may be bound by it, just as much as a private concern would be.”
As I’ve argued before (see LAWS179), the pledge cards is a paragon situation for the substantive legitimate expectation of the political parties about what was legitimate spending to be protected; that is, the parties should not be required to pay back the funds.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Sorry IP, you have no coalition partners, Don’s right wing extremism has ensured that. So it looks like there’s at least five more years of you frothing at your computor screen to look forward to eh? Oh well, things cold be worse eh fella? Run along now and do your penance for helping National grasp defeat from the jaws of victory in the last election -100 flagellations and 1000 hail marys should do it hah?
October 13th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I am with the sane people of this thread. Let’s keep the pressure on ALL parties to pay it back. Labour’s statement that they will pay back is just that and we should not let them wriggle out of it or destract from it by their vicious mudslinging. Emotions and ethics aside what they did is plainly illegal – the facts are that these politicians tried to swindle their way into governing the country, and upon being caught with their fingers in the till, blatantly refused to pay it back for months, totally ignoring higher legal authorities, and therefore putting them above the law. I am gobsmacked that there hasn’t been public outcry to stand down
October 13th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Simple Stop all politians and extra’s at the Airport .They stop others who don’t pay. Their rules
No leaving NZ with debts greater than $5000.
October 13th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Labour won’t pay the money back. It’s all spin, saying they would yesterday was just to take some of the heat away. They’ll pass a law with the Commies, Winnie & the Dunnie, making the spending legal, whilst claiming that they are also in the process of paying it back, but the cheques will never arrive.
Watch this space.
October 13th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
BTW, Insolent Prick, what does phillipjohn actually do at uni ?
October 13th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Spirit of 76: For Labour to commit to paying the money back and then volte-face and pass legislation that legalises the spending instead would be electoral suicide, and will not happen.
I find the ‘watch this space’ in a similar vein to the excited, mean-spirited partisan hand-rubbing over those incompetent PIs a couple of weeks ago, who have now (as predicted) slunk back into the woodwork without a skerrick of the promised mud slung.
I am not a Labour voter, but I am sure that they would not shaft themselves fatally by massively reneging on what they have seen is an issue vital to their continued support.
DenMT
October 13th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Looking for some ad hominem material SO1976?
October 13th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
It appears so Sonic, Unfortunately this is all those rabid right wing nut jobs are good for. Don’t see IP and the like being censored for it though.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Don’t let it slip that you are, in fact, Professor Emeritus in the department of advanced physics and really hard sums..
They’ll use it against you.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
DenMT, This is what I said:
1 – Labour primise to pay it back, then
2 – Pass the legislation making the spending legal
3 – The cheques never arrive.
Do you think Winnie is going to allow his party to get hung out to dry on their own ? Fat chance.
Surely the MPs have savings, how about they demonstrate their committment by making a partial payment right now, say 10% of it, about $1600 bucks par MP?
October 13th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
I wonder if there is any mechanism for members of the public to write to the GG asking her to dissolve parliament as they believe the government is only there through corrupt practises…
Saying that while the PM may have the confidence of parliament she doesn’t have the confidence of the public!
Anyone know????
October 13th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Burt….
Replying to your previous post. You made the comment NZ1 & Rt Hon would get some respect back by doing the decent thing and bringing down the present Labour govt. You are right to a point, but who are you going to replace it with??
Most NZ1 supporters would have no problem with a National, UF, NZ1 govt. But it dependes on who is leading National I can assure you as long as Don Brash is there, no way! also Hide and ACT would be out of the picture also.
You then say why wouldn’t NZ1 go with National..For a start NZ1 & I believe UF asked to see Nationals Tax cut costings, you guessed it Brash wouldn’t supply the figures. And of course they had Hide lurking in the Background.
Also NZ1 won’t go with the looney Right or Left. So that is why the ACT&Greens are out of the picture, thank goodness!
The answers easy Burt replace Brash and who knows what might happen, really the balls in your court!
It could be said that the price Labour, NZ1, UF, Greens, have to pay is well worth the money owed..Especially if it kept Brash/Hide off the front Benches.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Yeah, I believe something along the lines of “get a real job” is the insult for anyone who isn’t at the top of the pyramid in the private sector – this of course excludes people employed by right wing organisations in the public sector (i.e. ignorant prick).
October 13th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Hmmmmmmm, so in effect National and United Future have to get over 50% of the vote come next election in order for them to for ma government (assuming Brash stays in as leader). Could be quite an extended period of whining about those dastardly socialists he fellas?
October 13th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Spirit Of 76: I am in full agreement that Labour should front with some cash soon to show commitment to paying up, but I doubt very much that they will stonewall in the way that NZ First is doing.
As I said, they won’t back down on a clear, simple statement like the one Cullen has made. It would be suicide. And that is why I think your ‘wait and see, they’ll never pay up’ is 100% wrong.
My $0.02 only, of course.
DenMT
October 13th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
DenMT, Fair enough !
October 13th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
PJ is 2 months up already?.
You’ve only been back a couple of days and its tedious again already.
You and Sonic need to face facts.The parties that you have been defending for the last few months stole money from the taxpayers. < thats a full stop right there.
xxx
CL
October 13th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
ChickenLittle: I assume that if you feel self-satisfied after pronouncing:
“You and Sonic need to face facts.The parties that you have been defending for the last few months stole money from the taxpayers.”
…that you are a Progressives supporter. Because otherwise the party you support stole money from the taxpayer.
DenMT
October 13th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
“I wonder if there is any mechanism for members of the public to write to the GG”
Yes it’s called the post office.
October 13th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Dean – the advice are only any kind of defence if they are “binding” (which is still not binding on the court to recognise them) and even then only for the period for which they are offered (usually covering a 3 year period).
However I suppose that does dovetail with your suggestion that thye make a perfect comparison to the current situation.
Although in this case Labour is trying to claim abscence of previous advice being an active defence which is an even more tortuous path.
The only “advice” they received was from PS etc which is worse than the commensurate equivalent of asking my Lawyer or Accountant.
In fact they deliberately avoided the equivalent of asking the IRD for a binding ruling, which I believe has had a very dark view taken on it in previous tax rulings?
October 13th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Before you get too high and mighty, I’ve got to wonder why ‘Rex’ is (as far as I’m aware) the only anonymous posting that’s ever appeared on Public Address. Very, very strange – is there any reason why full disclosure isn’t possible…
I know, and I accept this person’s reason for not being able to sign his name – that was implicit in the decision I made to publish it. You’ll have to accept my word that he is not associated with any political party. I ran it because it makes a sound argument – and a far better one than that stupid slogan-shouting Herald editorial today. Which, by the way, doesn’t carry a byline either …
Cheers,
RB