My Right

Mr Peters told Parliament that allegations were made against him during his absence from New Zealand last week.

"Those allegations are baseless and ridiculous and I immediately instructed my legal counsel to take action, seeking damages and costs from those organisations and individuals who promulgated those allegations," Mr Peters said.

"Accordingly, papers were lodged in the High Court in Auckland today seeking damages and costs from Television New Zealand, Radio New Zealand, Yvonne Dossetter, Ken Shirley (ACT) MP and David Carter (National) MP.

"Those who would publish or repeat such allegations either do not know me or know nothing of what I have achieved in my political career."

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support those reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised to table. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper. Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House – perhaps one of the most savoury members who has passed through this House – a Mr Ross Meurant.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Unsavoury.

Hon Ken Shirley: Certainly unsavoury. It seems that a former member of parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Siminovich Fisheries as an adviser and a lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course – and a lot of people do not realise this – Mr Meurant was also hired by the NZ First party and paid for on its payroll; actually the taxpayers’ payroll through Parliamentary Services. We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Siminovich Fisheries, and Mr Meurant’s former partner of some nine years, Yvonne Teresa Dossiter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Siminovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Siminovich business.

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20". So now the dinner for ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10."

Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks."

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

Mr Brownlee says National's opposition to the latest deal is no different than any other non-traditional contemporary claims which National has opposed.

"This industry is less than 40-years-old and it is fanciful for Maori to claim treaty rights to any part of it.

"We opposed Maori getting airwave rights, and we opposed them getting a cut of new oil discoveries, and we oppose this.

"Labour must stop this nonsense of giving away the farm - or in this case aquaculture - in a bid to buy Maori votes."

Tapu Misa reappointed to Broadcasting Standards Authority

In other words, National's core problem with the scheme is that it is so generous. Generous to the extent that some families are getting almost $200 a week extra in the hand from the government.