From Nazional New Zealand - 05/02/206

Shit just got real if you are throwing your lawyer under a bus – Key shoots his money man live on Radio

By Martyn Bradbury 

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/05/02/shit-just-got-real-if-you-are-throwing-your-lawyer-under-a-bus-key-shoots-his-money-man-live-on-radio/

Shit just got real if you are throwing your lawyer under a bus as Key did this morning on Radio NZ.

Key buried his own lawyer so far down, Ken Whitney’s forgotten what sunlight means.

Shredding his own lawyers reputation doesn’t come cheap. Key has obviously had explained the ramifications of being seen to have gone soft on cracking down on Tax Havens after his own personal Trust Lawyer used his name to get the Minister to eventually cave in and not order a crackdown.

The perception of corruption alone is crucifyingly damaging in of itself, let alone any actual conflict of interest. Kiwi’s may not get mass surveillance and the twists and turns of Dirty Politics, but their conservatism detects a crook when they see it.

Thanks to David Farrar’s polling expertise last time, Key knew exactly when to cut loose Judith Collins in the middle of the Dirty Politics tempest, Key’s decision to knife his own lawyer on live National radio suggests Mr Farrar was up very late last night briefing the Prime Minister on his latest polling over the weekend.

The Great White Shark dead eyed ruthlessness of a Prime Minister trapped is a thing to behold.

John’s Key’s “lawyer” is not a lawyer

SIMON LOUISSON

April 21st, 2016

John Key, explaining why he had an account with tax avoidance specialists Antipodes Trust Group, said he used the firm because his long-term friend, Ken Whitney, is a principal at the firm and has been his private lawyer for many years.

Trouble is Whitney is not a lawyer.

According to the NZ Law Society, Whitney surrendered his legal practicing registration in February.

“If you provide any legal services without a current practising certificate you must not describe yourself as a lawyer, law practitioner, legal practitioner, barrister, solicitor, attorney-at-law or counsel. To do so is an offence under Section 21 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act,” the Law Society’s Senior Solicitor Regulatory, Charlotte Walker, told TS.

When TS contacted Whitney to ask him if he was Key’s lawyer, he said: “Yes.”

Later he conceded he was retired from legal practice, although he said he was a consultant with Alexander Dorrington Lawyers, the practice that bought Whitney’s practice, Ross & Whitney, in February 2014, which he shared with Ian Ross.

Whitney said he was aware he was not registered. “I’m not calling myself a lawyer, Mr Key is.”

Alexander Dorrington do most of the actual legal work on his advice, he said.

Asked if, given the publicity generated by the revelation that Key had an account with Antipodes, which specialises in offshore trusts, that Whitney did not have a responsibility to clarify the situation, Whitney said: “No, I didn’t feel any need to comment.”

Key, who surely is also aware of Whitney’s non registration as a lawyer, has also seen fit not to clarify the situation.

Michael Macaulay, Director of Victoria University’s Institute of Governance and Policy Studies told TS that anyone can take legal advice from whomever they you want to – a friend or a former lawyer – “but when it comes to matters of such national importance as the trust issues, which is clearly going to have ramifications for a long, long time to come, it is just common sense to use transparent, legal advice.”

“Anyone who uses a firm for serious legal advice, they should be aware of the status of that person in that firm, particularly if you are the prime minister.”

“If you are taking legal advice and you are using that to make your public and political judgements, you want to be aware of that status of that person in that firm.”

Key said Whitney was “highly ethical” and that was why he chose him as his lawyer.

“I don’t deal with people unless they’re highly ethical and they do things well. He’s changed firms and that might get everyone else excited but from my point of view it’s situation normal.

“I have to look down the barrel of the camera and make sure everything’s right”.

“I’ve covered my affairs the entire time I’ve been Prime Minister exactly the same way. My lawyer’s changed firms; that’s the end of the matter.

“It wasn’t embarrassing seven years ago, it’s not embarrassing today.”

Whitney letting his registration lapse is not a simple matter of oversight. He surrendered his law practicing registration when he set up Antipodes, which clearly was done with the intention of cashing in on New Zealand’s tax haven status, that John Key has been instrumental in maintaining.

Whitney openly told TS he specialises in setting up trusts for foreigners. On its website, Antipodes describes itself as “a specialist provider of trustee services for foreign trusts using New Zealand as their jurisdiction of choice.” Such trusts offer “a well-established vehicle for carefully managing the inter-generational transfer of wealth”.

It points to the tax-free benefits, as well as the lack of inheritance taxes and laws that protect client confidentiality and “limited” reporting requirements which mean the identities of settler and beneficiaries do not need to be disclosed.

Whitney said Antipodes doesn’t give tax advice at all. “We are simply trust administrators.”

The aim of his “discreet personal service” is to carve out a slice of the $25 million to $50 million in fees that John Key thinks is an important part of the economy, whereby foreigners are able to use New Zealand’s legal tax-free status for foreign trusts to dodge tax at home.

The Companies Office registry show Whitney and Ross are directors of scores of firms, a good proportion of which have offshore owners and many of which are no doubt taking advantage of NZ’s lax disclosure laws and the no tax provisions for foreigners that Key says do not amount to being a tax haven.

Key said foreign trusts are a legitimate business and aren’t “the devil incarnated”.

Given the release of the Panama Papers, where 11.5 million documents have revealed a pandemic of tax dodging, Whitney’s timing may have been inopportune.

There are very serious questions raised about Key’s relationship with his “lawyer” and long-term friend Whitney, who is running what amounts to business that facilitates tax avoidance.

Given that Key says he has been friends with Whitney for many years, and Whitney says on his Linked-in profile that he has had expertise in offshore trusts for years, presumably Key has been fully aware of Whitney’s dark skill sets.

And to what extent is Key influenced in his belief that New Zealand is not a tax haven and has adequate disclosure rules by the fact that his mate and lawyer has just established a business that is dependent on such a regime continuing.

As well, following the public uproar about his claim that New Zealand is not a tax haven, did it sway his decision to appoint John Shewan, a declared proponent of low tax and an adviser on the Bermuda tax haven, to review New Zealand’s offshore tax and disclosure rules?

Key was blindsided when Parliament’s Register of MPs’ Pecuniary Interests showed he had a short-term deposit with Antipodes.

He insisted last week that if the Panama Papers included anything that showed him in a bad light, it would be out by now, not the most convincing declaration of innocence.

Since becoming Prime Minister, Key has put his investments in a blind trust, the Aldgate Trust. He is also a beneficiary of the Key family trust. Whitney is a director of Whitechapel, the corporate trustee of Aldgate.

Questions have been raised about how much Key knows about his blind trust. Having as a director of the trustee someone who heads a business which proclaims to be a specialist provider of trustee services for foreign trusts using New Zealand as their jurisdiction of choice, makes you wonder if some of Aldgate/Whitechapel’s funds have been invested in foreign trusts.

Macaulay said the Panama Papers exposure, which has revealed people in high places around the world using tax havens to dodge taxes, had raised immense issues of ethics and justice and these papers were likely to be just the beginning.

“I think this is the tip of the tip of the iceberg. The Panama Papers are just one set of papers – god knows what exists in other tax havens around the world,” he said.

“People need to be transparent about these things because the whole issue is about secrecy.”

Macaulay noted that Key said one of the reasons why people use trusts is that they don’t trust the system “but that doesn’t seem a good reason to go and hide things offshore, does it?”

Using offshore trusts may not be illegal in a concrete sense, “but the question then becomes, how fair are the laws? There you have a massive ethical gray area because some laws are skewed towards the benefit of some rather the benefit of all – that’s not an ethical issue, that’s a justice issue.”

“When you look at the trillions and trillions of dollars stashed away, we probably could have solved most social problems many times over.

“The majority of people in New Zealand have enough to have a reasonable life, but a lot of people have absolutely nothing and it’s absolutely wrong.”

Minister Chris Finlayson:I’m no secret fascist

The Minister responsible for Security Intelligence Services, Chris Finlayson.

Stuff,

25 August, 2015

Security services minister Chris Finlayson says he is not a "crypto-fascist" stealthily imposing "secret courts." 

A last-minute change to new health and safety laws would have allowed hearings behind closed doors to protect national security. The Law Society said the Crown could introduce evidence which could be withheld from a defendant or their lawyers.

Finlayson - who is also the Attorney-General - says the amendment was scrapped a week ago. And he doesn't like the term "secret courts" describing it as "hyperbolic."

READ MORE: New health and safety laws contain 'secret courts' provision

But although the Law Society were commenting on an old version of the legislation, it appears their original fears still stand.

Finlayson told reporters: "I saw some article in the Dominion Post that suggested I was some sort of crypto-fascist behind this particular secret court. But it was nothing of the sort.

"It was a [Supplementary Order Paper] that was introduced to deal with the circumstances in which you would deal with a hearing behind closed doors. Where did the [Law Society]  go wrong? Well, probably, what they did is that they didn't really understand the legislative history and hadn't picked up on the most recent SOP."

The bill - which is progressing through committee stages at Parliament - now makes clear that all parties should have access to classified evidence relevant to proceedings.

But it also allows a court to exclude "any person" from the hearing, or to appoint a special advocate with security clearance to view classifiedclass="Apple-converted-space" evidence on a defendant's behalf.

The Law Society won't comment further until it has received the new SOP. 

The health and safety laws also now allowsclass="Apple-converted-space" the directors of the Government Security Service or Security Intelligence Service to deem that the legislation or regulations do not apply to their agencies.

'NOTHING SINISTER' IN THIS

Finlayson defended last minute changes to the legislation, relating to the security services. 

"Sometimes issues do arise at the 11th hour," he said. "Did it justify actually turning it back to the select committee for a hearing? The answer is no. In the overall scheme of things it's a very small corner of the legislation, that's just the way in which you deal with the issue of classified information."

He says there is "nothing surprising or sinister in any of this." And he argues current laws don't clearly set out how security information should be dealt with in the courts.

Anti-terror laws passed last year to target foreign fighters introduced closed proceedings for appeals and judicial reviews in cases where a passport has been cancelled.

And legislation currently before Parliament strips coronersclass="Apple-converted-space" of the automatic right to investigate combat deaths. Under the guises of protecting national security, the military will investigate deaths in-house.

Secret courts - or closed material procedures - are increasingly a feature of the UK justice system, as the British Government moved to protect the disclosure of intelligence provided by US agencies. It argued it was forced to pay compensation because it couldn't reveal some evidence in court. But critics say it skews some cases in the Government's favour and is unfair.

'HYPERBOLIC AND UNHELPFUL'

Finlayson denies the Government is moving to establish secret courts.

"The term secret courts is, with respect, hyperbolic and unhelpful. But there will be situations in a variety of cases - be it a patent case, an immigration case, I suppose it could arise in a coronial inquiry where there will be a need to grapple with the issue of dealing with classified information...Do you deal with it in particular pieces of legislation or could it perhaps be dealt with generically in the evidence act? And personally I could see that there is a case to be made there as well."

He slammed the Law Society for choosing "to comment on legislation via press release."

The Law Society first wrote to Workplace Relations and Safety minister Michael Woodhouse on August 21, and also notified his office before issuing their statement.

A spokeswoman for Finlayson, acting as attorney-general, later said that a prosecuting authority cannot use classified security information if the defendant does not also have access to it.

She later clarified: "There may be situations when a non-Crown Defendant wants to use classified security information. If they do not have the appropriate security clearances to allow direct access to this information, the Special Advocate provisions...are there to ensure that non-Crown individuals and non-Crown entities can make use of classified security information in their defence through use of a Special Advocate."

LABOUR BACKS LAW SOCIETY

Labour's David Parker backed the Law Society, saying some of their concerns remain true.

"First, that this was introduced without submissions. Second, that there was no assessment of whether it is an infringement of civil liberties in breach of the Bill of Rights, given the right to a fair trial. Both of those criticisms by the Law Society are undoubtedly true and nothing the Attorney General has provided suggest otherwise."

The new amendments are "hard to fathom."

"If that means...that the parties to the proceedings including the accused,class="Apple-converted-space" have had to hadclass="Apple-converted-space" access to all the classified information, not just some of the classified information, the rest of it becomes a nonsense. Why would you have the ability ...to make an order excluding an accused person or their lawyer from part of the courtsclass="Apple-converted-space" proceedings?"

Welcome to Nazional New Zealand.

---Comment

“All New Zealanders should be very worried” - Law Society

Last minute changes to new laws initially drafted in response to the Pike River Mine tragedy could impact constitutional rights, the New Zealand Law Society says.

NZ Lawyer,

26 August, 2015

After three days of intense debate, the Health and Safety Bill could see its third and final reading as soon as tomorrow.

The bill is a 273-page omnibus one which will overhaul New Zealand’s workplace health and safety system, replacing the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Machinery Act 1950.

But the Law Society has written to Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Woodhouse, expressing concern around the last-minute insertion to the bill of provisions for a closed material procedure for court proceedings where national security is involved, saying the provisions should not have been inserted at this late stage of the legislative process.

The provisions will allow a person to be tried and convicted of a criminal offence without seeing all the information relied on by the Crown and without the right to be present - or to have their representative present - during all the proceedings.

This is inconsistent with the fundamental right to a fair trial, the Law Society said in a release yesterday.

Law Society president Chris Moore recommended the removal of the provisions from the Bill, to await the outcome of an inquiry the Law Commission is carrying out on National Security Information in Proceedings.

“The Law Commission has already identified significant issues about the matters covered by the provisions which have been inserted in the Bill, and it does not appear that these have been taken into account.”

The processes inserted by Schedule 2A directly impact on very significant constitutional rights, he said.

“Because Schedule 2A was not in the Bill when introduced, it has not been subject to the Bill of Rights vetting process and will miss public consultation and input.”

Mr Moore felt that the Government’s advisers believed there would be relatively few circumstances where secure handling of classified information would be needed as part of any health and safety investigation or legal proceedings where national security is involved.

“However, Schedule 2A has a very wide definition of ‘classified security information’. The Law Commission – which, it is important to stress, has been actively researching this very matter – has identified some major human rights issues in this matter.”

The Law Society has also advised the Minister that Schedule 2A attempts to remove the power of the courts to review a determination that certain information is ‘classified security information’.

“New Zealanders should be very worried when the powers of our courts to review any decision made by civil servants are curtailed, as could happen here.”

The Law Society said that if the provisions are to be retained in the legislation, they should be more narrowly cast “at a minimum” and it strongly urges that the outcome of the Law Commission review be awaited.

The Bill has attracted some controversy; with opposition MPs angered by the Government’s decision to dairy, beef and sheep farms as low risk, while classifying worm farms as high risk. That has since been changed.