Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): When this inquiry was first set up Transparency International and the UK Tax Justice Network said it would not allay the fears and the claims being made about New Zealand's position as a tax haven. There are two groups that are experts—not like the so-called expert they chose for this inquiry.The Prime Minister announced this review at the same time he asserted again the integrity of the New Zealand trust laws when it came to taxation. If our system had any integrity this review would not be required. The fact is our system and its integrity were under grave question from expert international comment and this emerged from the Panama Papers which the Prime Minister sought to deny the import of. Mr Key knew about this a long way back.In 2011 Mr Key knew of the Santa Tereza case when Geoffrey Taylor linked New Zealand company SP Trading to smuggling 35 tonnes of North Korean weapons into Iran. Mr Key knew when Minister Simon Power alerted him back then to what was going on in New Zealand entities back as far as 2011. And a principal of Santa Tereza in a plea bargain in Brazil where he was picked up purely by mistake admitted the money-laundering operation that he was involved in.So the Prime Minister decides to carry on with his bluster. First of all he was going to have an inquiry by a man in the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). The problem with the man in the IRD: his reputation lasted exactly 24 hours until it was unearthed that in the wine-box inquiry which some members of this House do not want to remember he was debunked as being an expert. He was seriously exposed as not knowing what his job was. He was a person who seriously believed that form was far more important than substance and as a consequence within 24 hours the Prime Minister was talking about getting an overseas expert—not a New Zealand expert; no an overseas one. And then that got flicked for a man called Shewan—in fact John Shewan—who we are told by the media of this country and I love that expression is a tax expert. Really? When the Westpac Banking Corporation ended in a Westpac Banking Corporation IRD dispute which ended with four Australian banks settling for $2.2 billion in December 2009 guess who he was involved for? The banks.Second he gave expert advice in the Penny and Hooper case and the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court two of the highest courts in our land dismissed his evidence as being inappropriate from an expert witness. So it is not me saying it it is not New Zealand First saying it; it is two of the highest courts in our land now saying it. Third he was dismissive over the Cook Islands wine-box allegations preferring form over substance a misguided view overruled by the Privy Council the Court of Appeal—that is the Privy Council in London by the way—and the New Zealand High Court. And fourth Mr Shewan had been giving advice to the New Zealand Government for years.He is no tax expert. And so he came out with a report. Before we get to the report anyone who was an expert seeking to do his job by his country—that is clean up the country's reputation—would have first asked to see the terms of reference and demand that they gave him or her the power to get to the truth. Well apparently he had a discussion about the terms of reference with Mr Key and as for the powers to get to the truth he did not ask for them. He did not ask for them. And out comes his report telling us less than we already know.Let me tell you a couple of the principal statements that came out of his report. He said: In theory"—listen to this—"the current rules should be sufficient to deter tax abuse."Ron Mark: In theory.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In theory.Ron Mark: In theory—ha ha! Pure theory.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha ha! Well you know that is astonishing from a professional. He is not talking about practice what is actually happening what is going on behind closed doors what is not transparent what is secret. No he says: "In theory".Then he went on to say this to this extent: "anti-money-laundering rules should ensure funds held [by foreign trusts] are from legitimate sources." I have seen some naive people in my time I can tell you—a lot of them from across the aisle over there—but I never thought that someone calling himself an expert could write something like that: "anti-money-laundering rules should ensure funds held [by foreign trusts] are from legitimate sources."We are not interested in the theory. This inquiry was meant to be about what was going on or the practice that was ripping this country's reputation apart. Mr Shewan did not find any direct evidence of illicit funds because he never had the powers to find out the truth and he never asked for them—he never asked for them. To say that the Panama Papers' reputational damage to New Zealand will be offset by any future moves to tighten disclosure rules means in reality that the Government gets away with another cover-up.The Government itself could not have written a weaker report. It did not give the inquiry the powers to get to the truth and Mr Shewan who is a "tax expert" did not ask for them. So what we had was merely a completion of the circle: the Government in denial an inquiry that did not get at the facts and then someone saying: "I've got a few things you should do." Given Mr Shewan's background New Zealand First unlike the other parties did not support his appointment. And it is wrong for the Green member Julie Anne Genter to say that we supported his appointment—no we did not. We knew we would get a soft report that would never get at the truth and would not finger anybody who would be of embarrassment to the Government. This is despite the fact that the trusts were building up in recent years by 500 percent. The number of trusts flocking here in their thousands to be formed was building up by a factor of 500 percent in recent years.As I said at the time Mr Key looked like some boy who had been widdling behind the couch and he is trying to tell mum: "The cat did it." It is pathetic in the extreme that this came from a First World democracy—from a man who came from Merrill Lynch who is meant to be an expert in finance. Mind you—Hon Member: No he's a dealer.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is just because he is a money dealer. And who is Merrill Lynch? Why they are a corrupt bunch of American Wall Street thieves who went belly up and had to be bailed out by whom? By the American taxpayer. That is no training school for someone to be able to understand integrity and honesty. That is Merrill Lynch. And by the way they are back again Merrill Lynch—all the same old feet in the same old troughs screwing the American public and they wonder why Donald Trump is winning on one side and Bernie Sanders almost won on the other side. The American system when it comes to these matters is crook.What did Mr Key say? This is what he said this morning: "I basically said New Zealand is not a tax haven." That is what he said this morning. He said "Well he"—he is talking about John Shewan—"agrees with that perspective. I said there is a full disclosure of information. There is when it is asked for." Mr Key said. What a duplicitous deceiving mind. So here you have got all these trusts set up. No one knows what their names are who is connected with them. You have to have a New Zealand name attached to them but as to who is behind them no one knows. And Mr Key says that it is adequate that the information will be disclosed when it is asked for. In short—Tracey Martin: Is he a psychic?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is right. My colleague Tracey Martin very wisely says you have got to be a psychic you have got to be a soothsayer or more important you have got to be someone with practical knowledge who knows that some people in this world befriended by the National Party are a bunch of crooks like they were in the Cook Islands like they were with the wine-box inquiry and like now.Can I just say this: this morning I happened to listen on the way to the airport to the most painful interview. It was Mr Woodhouse being interviewed. I have never seen someone make such a sorry sad—I cannot use the word to go with it—fool of himself. It was an unbelievably—torturous is a word is it not? It was torturous tortuous turgid in the extreme a fabrication of nothing on behalf of a man who claims to be a professional. Frankly we do not need Ministers like that in charge of the Inland Revenue Department. We need to do what you say Mr Assistant Speaker: wind them up take them out get somebody who is responsible—in fact listen to a party called New Zealand First which said from the word go that this would be a whitewash and it is."