kenw

OPINIONOpinionMay 6, 2016

John Key’s non-lawyer lawyer, Mossack Fonseca, and matters of sloppiness

kenw

The prime minister has suggested his lawyer was sloppy in his choice of wording in an email two years ago. Now, on assurances regarding Mossack Fonseca, is the sloppiness getting even sloppier?

On April 13, the prime minister was widely reported as saying he had been assured that his longstanding personal lawyer, Ken Whitney, had not worked or dealt with Mossack Fonseca, the company at the centre of the Panama Papers leaks.

Take this, for example, from Newshub:

dealthwith

This afternoon, however, the Australian Financial Review, which has been privy to the Panama Papers leaks in connection with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, published a story relating to the controversial sale of Taranaki farmland to Argentinian brothers, which “challenges parts of the government’s account of the sale, as well as revealing other deals with a cast of controversial players ranging from senior members of the government of Malta to Panama lawyer with an outstanding arrest warrant in Brazil on money laundering charges”, according to the AFR’s Neil Chenoweth.

The AFR report reproduces this letter, from one Ken Whitney, to Mossack Fonseca & Co:

 

rosswhitney

Does that qualify as “dealing with” or having “done any work with Mossack Fonseca”? It clearly doesn’t imply a working relationship. But at the very least it seems, well, sloppy.

(Update, May 7, 1.15pm: John Key has said “there’s no issues” in regard to the Whitney letter. Speaking to media, he said that he had not spoken to him about that matter, but that “he provided a reference about a New Zealand law firm”, which did not constitute “working with” MF: “there’s nothing wrong in that.”)

The tale of John Key’s personal lawyer, his lobbying on possible changes to New Zealand’s foreign trust tax regime and what he was or wasn’t told by the prime minister, has not always been easy to follow. At one point this week the prime minister helped us understand by reference to his egalitarian approach to Koru Lounge visitors.

A crucial point of contention concerns Mr Whitney’s remarks, in a 2014 email to revenue minister Todd McClay, about having discussed with Key a report regarding IRD plans to review foreign trust laws. Whitney said he had “spoken to the Prime Minister about this and he advised that the Government has no current plans to change the status of the foreign trust regime in New Zealand.”

kenw

Yeah, nah, said Mr Key of the assertion, contained in emails released to the Green Party under the Official Information Act. Mr Whitney hadn’t been advised of any such thing, and he now recognised that. “He is absolutely confident that my version of events is correct and that’s what he attempted to write in the email,” Key said.

“It may be the email was sloppily written,” reckoned Mr Key, who had simply “sent him off to the minister”, as he would with anyone, including those from all walks of life who approach him in the Koru Lounge.

Some lawyers may take exception at the idea they might be sloppy email writers. But Mr Whitney, it turns out, is not a lawyer, or he was a lawyer, but he is not a lawyer any longer. Which means he is not Mr Key’s personal lawyer, as he is routinely and sloppily described.

As Mr Whitney reportedly told the Standard blog, “I’m not calling myself a lawyer, Mr Key is.”

The sloppiness, it is all around us!

Whether to repair further sloppiness or simply in the cause of a spruce-up, Mr Whitney’s current firm, the Antipodes Trust Group, has revised its website to help clarify a few things about the foreign trusts based in New Zealand.

For example, from the mid-March 2016 version, under the “Why choose New Zealand as a trust jurisdiction” heading:

antstatpriv1

At some point before the end of April, after the Panama Paper revelations and the sudden attention being paid to foreign trusts, it had been carefully augmented with the sentence, “The name of the trust and details of the trustee must be provided to the New Zealand tax authorities and are subject to exchange of information tax treaties”, and a note that “the trustee who must also be satisfied that funds contributed to the trust are from a legitimate source”

The current version:

antstatpriv2

That’s much more thorough!

What else?

Under the “About” heading, an important word has been added.

Compare:

about1

… with:

about2

The earlier version has been updated, removing any suggestion Whitney remains a partner in a legal firm. Lower down, moreover, the words “Ken … continues to be a member of the New Zealand Law Society” have sensibly been removed.

If nothing else, in a world beset by slop, this appears to point up the value of revelations such as the Panama Papers leaks in spurring us all on to exterminate the scourge of sloppiness.

The Spinoff has approached Mr Whitney and the prime minister’s office for comment.

Keep going!
A busy bus lane in London (actually an electric-car park). Photo: Miles Willis/Getty
A busy bus lane in London (actually an electric-car park). Photo: Miles Willis/Getty

OPINIONSocietyMay 6, 2016

Electric cars are terrific. Putting them in bus lanes is bonkers

A busy bus lane in London (actually an electric-car park). Photo: Miles Willis/Getty
A busy bus lane in London (actually an electric-car park). Photo: Miles Willis/Getty

Opinion: The government wants more electric vehicles on NZ roads. But the plan to let them drive in bus lanes can only throw improvements in bus services into reverse, writes Matt Lowrie.

The government wants to boost the currently dismal uptake of electric vehicles, increasing the numbers on our roads from about 1,200 to 64,000 in just five years. To do that, they have announced a package to encourage more people to buy an electric car. Most of the initiatives, such as extending the Road User Charges exemption on light vehicles and introducing an exception for heavy vehicles, are probably fine but one of the initiatives is completely nuts – letting electric vehicles use bus lanes and busways.

enabling

“The Government will make changes to the Land Transport Act and Rules to allow electric vehicles to drive in bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes on the State Highway network, which it controls,” the official fact sheet explains. “One example is the Northern Busway in Auckland.”

This is madness. The whole point of busways, bus lanes and to a lesser extend transit lanes is to make buses, which are much more spatially efficient, more viable and work better. They can make buses:

  • faster, making them more attractive to use and can also make them time competitive with driving.
  • more efficient, because buses are faster they can run more services can be run for the same cost or alternatively fewer vehicles and drivers may be needed
  • more convenient as if they allow more services to be run it means higher frequencies so less time waiting at bus stops.
  • more reliable as they’re more likely to arrive at stops and the final destination on time.
A busy bus lane in London (actually an electric-car park). Photo: Miles Willis/Getty
A busy bus lane in London (actually an electric-car charging station). Photo: Miles Willis/Getty

The introduction of bus lanes meant that far more people have been able to be moved along many key corridors than they would have otherwise. For example, the Northern Busway carries about 40% of all traffic crossing the Auckland Harbour Bridge during the morning peak – five lanes of traffic and 40% of the people are in fewer than 200 vehicles. On the city’s other corridors like Dominion Rd more than 50% of people are on the bus yet in both situations the lanes can look empty. But a bus lane that looks empty normally means it’s actually doing its job and allowing buses to flow, uninterrupted by congestion.

Adding electric vehicles to this – vehicles which will mostly be carrying only a single occupant, will undo some of the benefits and make buses less efficient. That’s because there’s a greater chance that buses will be held up or miss lights etc. It means a double decker carrying 100 people have the same level of priority as a single person in an electric car.

This isn’t just theoretical: back in 2010 the old Auckland City Council trialled changing the then Tamaki Drive bus lanes to T2, permitting any vehicle with two or more occupants. It actually had the effect, results showed, of slowing other road users, especially the general traffic. One of the reasons for this is the T2/3 drivers would push back in to the general traffic queue to get around buses at bus stops. I believe the same situation would apply to electric vehicles allowed in bus lanes.

It is worth noting that when the Northern Busway was first designed and approved it was it was done so with the idea that high occupancy vehicles (HOV) could potentially also be allowed to use it. This was because at the time they were worried not enough people would catch a bus and it is why, for example, there’s a blocked off access at the Constellation Station. Of course, as we know, not a single HOV has used the busway because it has performed above expectations.

There are other reasons electric cars in bus lanes is a bad idea.

Bus lanes are often considered cycle lanes, too. Allowing electric vehicles into those lanes could increase the risk for people on bikes. We also know from the recent Grafton Bridge trial (that has now ended) that many drivers simply don’t follow the rules. This would be no different with electric cars.

Getting single occupant vehicles back out of bus lanes in the future will be difficult. It’s also worth noting that other parts of the announcement had sunset clauses on them of either time or a once a percentage vehicles went electric. There was nothing mentioned for access to bus lanes.

Enforcement will be much harder as it is difficult to tell which vehicles are electric and which ones aren’t. In addition, many drivers seem to exhibit a bit of a herd mentality and if they see a couple of drivers getting an advantage they’ll start to copy. This would exacerbate the issues of cars in bus lanes.

Currently electric vehicles are more expensive than their fossil fuelled counterparts and the biggest buyers seem to be businesses for fleet cars. It means the benefit of driving in bus lanes will likely be predominantly enjoyed by a small(ish) group of early adopters.

Electric vehicles in bus lanes is a terrible idea, unless of course you drive an electric car already or are planning on getting one. The busway is owned by the NZTA but when it comes to most of the other bus lanes let’s hope that Auckland Transport are able to say no to his idea on local roads at least. If they can’t then the government will have managed to neuter bus lanes and risk setting them back years.

An earlier version of this post appears at Transportblog.co.nz