Newstalk ZB has just reported that Bill Liu has been acquiited of all counts. Justice Tim Brewer has ruled orally that the Crown was unable to prove the allegations of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that proving a high level of suspicion fell short of the Crown's burden of proof.
Given that the charges faced by Liu related to the fradulent use of documents, we don't think that this verdict makes any material difference to Shane Jones. Justice Brewer has made that clear in his oral decision. The revelation on Monday that Liu paid the brother of a senior Jones staffer $10,000 to handle his citizenship application only muddies the waters further. So does Cameron Slater's revelation this morning that the QC that Shane Jones consulted as he made the decision on Liu's application also acted for Dover Samuels who twice wrote in support of Liu's application.
We believe that the way forward here is for a Judicial Inquiry to be set up, and for all aspects of this case to be examined; the decision, the process and the personnel involved. The Terms of Reference for the Auditor-General's inquiry are, in our opinion inadequate. A full indepeandant inquiry is needed to restore faith in the integrity of the system by which decisions on New Zealand citizenship are made.
UPDATE: David Shearer confirms that Bill Liu's acquittal will have no effect on the inquiry he has called for with regard to Shane Jones.
26 comments:
Time to take a deep breath and reflect, I imagine. The AG will find nothing wrong with Mr Jones' excercise of his powers when minister, and the matter will evaporate, except in the minds of those who believe in the grassy knoll, or rhe CIA's backing of 9/11.
Maybe it's time to get back to the real issues facing NZ, such as a single metric government without a clue about how to steer NZ through the stormy seas of the global economy.
The A-G has only been asked to investigate the process Robert, and not the circumstances surrounding Jones' decision; is that a full and frank inquiry?
As for the Budget; I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But I do not believe that now is a time for excessive government spending. In my businesses and at home, I have made a priority of reducing debt, saving, and matching income and expenditure; why should the government be any different?
No one, Keeping Stock, is calling for "excessive government spending". Of course if you can find such a statement, paste it here verbatim, your claim will have some substance.
You'll be aware that the arguments for private debt and Government debt are different. That means, not the same. The models are different and each requires a different response. Reducing Government debt 'back to surplus', while useful, is not vital in the way that English is spinning it. there are far more important things to achieve, than surplus. If that target is touted above all else, as it is, damage occurs to more vital parts of our various systems; economic, social and others. I'm surprised that you are unaware of this, KS. You seems to be a person who deals with finances, albeit on a scale other than the Government operates at.
In a nutshell, you've bought National's careful framing of 'what's important'. It's a con, KS. A con.
Serious point. Government debt is not like household or business debt. It is not the same phenomenon, as Keynes and others are clear. See the Krugman argument that I posted today.
As to Jones, if he is shown to have acted wrongly, so be it. But, if the process is correct, what's the beef? The links between Dover, Shane and others are, in their nature, not uncommon in NZ, and there is no evidence whatsoever of corruption. There is insinuation and suggestion, but nothing more.
"as Keynes and others are clear"
Sorry for continuing with a O/T tangent KS, but Robert, I really think you should add Not PC to your blog reading.
"There is insinuation and suggestion, but nothing more."
There are huge amounts of cash-for-passports smoke, leading any vaguely impartial observer to the conclusion that there's a reasonably-sized fire at the base of it.
@JS: as I wrote, plenty of suggestion and insinuation (as in "huge amounts of cash-for-passports smoke, leading any vaguely impartial observer to the conclusion that there's a reasonably-sized fire at the base of it") but no evidence.
And, re Keynes and debt, what is your view (rather than someone else's)?
The attacks on Shane Jones is purely a tactical measure on the part of National to draw attention away from their own more genuine woes.
The recession ended over a year ago for most of our exporters and corporate NZ, most company's and our wealthiest New Zealanders saw an average of a 20% increase in profit last year. It is our domestic economy that is struggling, with a median income of only $27,000 there is little disposable money to send on other than the basics.
The spending priorities for this government should be all about building economic capacity and growth. R&D, education, vocational training and important infrastructure. While there has been much talk about such things the amount invested hasn't match the rhetoric. Instead we have billions spent on motorways of questionable importance and the billions it has cost us to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, who instead of reinvesting in productive business have spent billions on luxury cars (around $2 billion last year) and expensive housing.
The living wage being progressed by churches and NGOs is hugely relevant as it is costing the government dearly to subsidize the wages of around 1/3 of our workforce (they can't live independently on their incomes). This isn't just about poor budgeting, it is just too hard to live on less than $27,000 a year. As Roosevelt and Savage knew, if you want to breath life into the local economy you have to increase the disposable incomes and living standards of working people.
Aaarrgh, change "company's" in my second paragraph to "companies"! I hate the improper use of apostrophes and I did it myself. :-(
@Robert - well you're pushing Krugman's view, I'm suggesting you read Not PC because he's the strongest local proponent of the Austrian school.
My own view is that I've read Austrian stuff and Keynes-based stuff and listened to what the leaders in Europe and the US are saying and it scares me.
@ bsprout - I wish that your comment about most companies applied to the ones my wife and I run; our accountant keeps asking us when we're going to cease to be non-profit organisations!
KS, good point, I really meant corporates. I am fully aware that many smaller companies are struggling and the Greens have recognized the importance of supporting smaller business in our election campaign by promoting a simplification of tax compliance.
Here is not the place to have an extended debate on the merits of the Austrian School, but let's be clear that most streams of economic thinking (orthodox neo-classicism in its various guises, similarly the varioius versions of Keynesianism, and Marxists, one and all) suggest that the Austrian School is variously methodologically problematic,overly individualist, in error on the credit and business cycles, and likely to lead to the direst of consequences as an effect of over-simplistic policy interventions. It is a fascinating intellectual provision, about as relevant as Cathar thought in the contemporary world.
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/median-wage-drops-while-company-profits.html
http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/banking-profits-vindicate-occupy-nz.html
@ bsprout - tax compliance has actually been one of our least-difficult issues in recent years. One of the decisions that Key's government made in the early days of the GFC was to make IRD become more small business-friendly, and my observation as the bloke that pays the GST/PAYE etc is that IRD responded very well to that challenge. A couple of times we were struggling, and after ringing them and explaining our situation (due to cyclical income), we were allowed to send post-dated cheques for PAYE. On each occasion it was only a matter of less than two weeks, but it made a huge difference.
But what worries me most is the push for a significant increase in the minimum wage. All our staff earn well above m/w; many are in the mid $20/hr range and higher. But say for example I have an office junior on $15/hr, and admin clerk on $18/hr and an office manager on $20/hr. If the minimum wage goes up by around 15%, an I not honour-bound as a good employer to increase everyone's pay by 15% to preserve relativity. After all, I am paying them based on their worth to the business.
A 15% across-the-board increase in the wage bill would cost me around $150,000 per annum. At a time when we are just keeping our heads above water, that would be unsustainable. It would result in staff cuts, or worst case, throwing up our hands and walking away, leaving 40+ people out of work; is that a desirable outcome?
I'm serious about this; I'd be interested to see what you, either/both of the Roberts or James think.
KS - what's up? This thread's redolent with intelligent debate.
A former employer of mine had no qualms about raising the floor without raising the ceiling, in fact he even used it as an excuse to not increase anyone elses rates. And he recycled his reasoning every time the min wage was inflated.
Prick.
What would the greens know about running a successful business (big or small) that doesn't involve some form of government subsidy?
"KS - what's up? This thread's redolent with intelligent debate."
That's only because the judicial car manufacturer has yet to make an appearance in this thread.
Awwww, still upset about being pwned the other day? Upset you hasn't it?
To funny.
KS, I think it has to be accepted that increases in wages overall have not kept up with the cost of living and even those on median incomes have seen a drop in the real value of their wages. Our Power company just increased their charge rate by 25% and such increases affect all of us. Wages have not kept up with increases in productivity for some time. I would suggest that an increase overall will see a boost in spending and most businesses will benefit as a consequence.
It sounds like you are a good employer and I have been told by many small businesses that they can't even afford to pay an increase to the minimum wage. It is a sort of chicken and egg conundrum, but i do believe if you want the economy to grow the best stimulus is to increase the disposable incomes.
We are also seeing further investment in property because of the lack of capital gains tax and most upper income earners earn 40% of their incomes from untaxed capital gain. Many of my business friends admit that investing in property still produces a better return then investing in their primary business.
It seems logical if the govt is short of revenue stopping the subsidizing of wages and introducing a capital gains tax would be two no brainers. Australia has higher taxation of their upper income earners, has a much higher minimum wage and a capital gains tax.
We may not have mining but we do have dairy, tourism and number of successful manufacturing exporters. A lot of our exports are raw commodities with little added value and there is much potential in green technologies. Compared to the likes of Spain, Greece and Ireland we are actually well placed to do well yet the government seems determined to stifle growth and narrow investment to things like mining.
"To (sic) funny"
This is embarrassing.
It sure is; you're actually retarded. I'm very sorry.
Don't feel bad, Judge Holden. None of us realized at first. We're all guilty of tormenting the idiot.
"KS - what's up? This thread's redolent with intelligent debate."
It is the Chicago School of Economics from the early part of the 20th Century.
"Me and da boys eat here free whenever we want and ya joint don't get trashed by undesirables."
Classy.
"TCrwdb"
"TCrwdb"
"TCrwdb"
Is that some sort of turnip?
Post a Comment