To Contact Us
to page back through Previous Editions click here Index is in right hand column

February 2012 Edition ----

We wish to refer to this article in Faifax publications about 12 December which tends to ridicule the continuation of of an action by about a quarter of subscribers to the 2004 Feltex IPO against liable parties to that fraudulent share issue. Sure the action is grinding through four years of "umpteen interlocutory battles" but that does not mean that the action is not extremely just. Those in charge of it are spinning it out on behalf of the fraudsters that implemented the IPO.

This article we refer to expresses surprise that the action is still going. We say it is aimed at reducing the expectations of those taking the action. The author is Marta Steeman This is the writer of the article who "summarised" the presentation of Kerry MacDonald to to a mining conference in November 2005. Mr MacDonald was then chairman of the then National Australia Bank subsidiary. the Bank of New Zealand and also chairman of the mining company Oceana Gold. Mr MacDonald decided to calculate the reduction of NZs exports per capita over 40 years since the boom time of the early 1950s when the country just happened to have the goods that the rich world wanted at the time giving the country almost the highest per capita income in the world. Well one could not expect this situation to last of course but Mr MacDonald wished to use the relative fall in export value to argue that the country had bad economic policies. The hope no doubt was that such policies would be changed to policies which best suited him. But the findings of that research was not convincing enough, he decided, so it seems he conspired with Ms Steeman for her to make an "unfortunate mistake" in a business page article in the Dominion Post so that instead of referring to the change in exports per capita over 40 years Ms Steeman said that this was the state of the country's exports per capita, full stop. She reported that "the country's {NZ's] exports per capita were almost half that of Australia and two and a half times less than that of the United States". In fact NZ's exports per capita were 25% greater than Australia and 75% greater than the United States. Mr MacDonald made no effort to correct it and the Dominion Post would not accept that the statement was wrong until Mr MacDonalds presentation was produced. The paper published this explanation as written by the press council but although they were required to correct, the true situation with respect to exports per capita was never given.

Ms Steeman now works in Christchurch, remaining on very shaky ground. Her support of the crooked element of the government/business sector is not acceptable.

Talking of this crooked sector we now wish to consider the females that are at the root of it. We do not suggest that females are more crooked than males. Far from it. We do say however that in the climate of the past 30 years females have a far far greater chance of getting away with crime than males. Males who criticise females have been severely penalised in terms of employment and the right to bring up children. Hence males have become cowards and seldom if ever do critise females and as a result spectacular female crime has arisen.

We intend setting out the structure of the crooked Feltex IPO for Olympic medals case.

The structure was obviously set up soon after Helen Clark gained power in late 1999. It is quite clear that it is a joint work of the two major political parties or elements of same. Obviously the portfolios of Commerce and Law have been involved. There have been some unexpected changes in these portfolios because no doubt it got rather too hot in the kitchen. The Law minister got sidelined into becoming the parliamentary speaker. Then when National came to power, the number 4 minister, Simon Power, was given both these portfolios and although in the prime of life he lasted only one term, leaving Parliament for a bank job.

The Commerce portfolio has now gone away down the list in the new line-up to No 19 and to a most controversial character in the circumstances. The new minister is one Craig Foss. A product of Naenae College Mr Foss was an officer of the Bank of New Zealand during the most disgusting ("extraordinary" is how the National Party express it) period in the Bank's history when this largely Government owned Bank lent profusely to contribute to the huge markets bubble and then had to be bailed out twice after the bubble burst. He was possibly managing the Bank's Singapore trading branch when the Bank invented a $100m profit for its 1990 year which this site has devoted much of its accusations to. So let's assume that he was not in on that. He was too close to it to expect to go unscathed though.

The 1990 BNZ scandal and its cover-up is not the biggest one handled by this site of course. It is the second biggest, and is well outdone by the 2004 share issue (IPO) of Feltex Carpets which was really a $250m robbery of amateur NZ investors. As we say above NZ's two major political parties were involved. The sole vendor (for 100% of the Coy), promoter, and some lead brokers for this issue were all obviously closely connected to the giant international bank Credit Suisse. Mr Foss's only other major period of employment from 1993 (when the BNZ was bought by National Australia Bank) was with this very bank.

Mr Foss was employed as a trader/risk manager by Credit Suisse, first in Europe then the Asia Pacific region from Tokyo. We don't know exactly when he left CS but he was elected an MP for National in Tukituki, Hawkes Bay in 2005. It seems likely he left CS around the time of the Feltex IPO. Perhaps that was his last sale as a trader. We suspect his political career was all arranged by CS to help ensure that no Feltex IPO robbers got into trouble.

We say that it is not acceptable that Mr Foss hold the commerce portfolio or anything related to it.

We have it in for the NZ Electoral Commission. It says that "It is clear from the Electoral Act 1993 that candidates for a party are those that were nominated by that party under Part 6, whose party name appeared on the ballot paper below those candidates' names pursuant to s 150(6)(d), and whose party logo appeared by the candidates' names pursuant to s 127(7)(d). "

What a lot of tommyrot. With respect to Part 6 the only reference to candidates that are for a party is in sec 143 (3A) where it says that candidates that are for a party can at their option have the party's logo against their name. But candidates that have a party logo against their name are unlikely to have got it there because they are for a party. Invariably they will have got the logo there uder sec 127(7) which we discuss below. Sec 150(6)(d) says that the name of the "political party of the constituency candidate", if any, shall be alongside the candidates name on the voting paper. But the "political party of the constituency candidate" can be quite a different thing from the "the party which the constituency candidate that is for". In the former case the party concerned is one the candidate belongs to, in the latter case it is the party favouring the candidate because of his/her qualities or circumstance, regardless of whether their is any other relationship between the two. Section 127(7) says that a party secretary may submit a logo to go alongside the name of "any constituency candidate of that party (if any)" . Again it is ""of" that party not "for" that party. There is a difference. They are of the party if they chose to stand for it, presumably with the party's permission. They are for that party if the party wishes them to win the constituency and assists them to do so.

It is clear that Peter Dunn and John Banks were candidates for the National Party in their respective constituencies because the National Party publicly stated that it wished them to win and it assisted them to do so. They are therefore "for that party" under sec 192 (2)(a) and so must be included in those MPs who make up that party's quota of MPs as determined by the party vote. The Commission knows full well the objective of the act is for the number of seats a part has to be determined by the party vote. There is no provision to get arround this by supporting some candidate other than your own knowing that that other candidate is likely to assist you but is not in your quota. If this were allowed MMP would not work but it is not allowed, as we have shown.

Advertising section

------------------------

Suitable Objectives

Register of Members

Members Forum - Topical
* open to all meantime:

Plenty of Opinion

Magazine Plans

Need an Accountant?
or Prepared to Change?

Users Forum
* have your say

Ready to Join?

Knowledge Tests
* being developed

What's Wrong with
the existing 
accounting body?

So called BNZ Audit
an extensive case study

 Visit our Advertising
page from 
Here