Editor,

In response to the article on Customs destroying TRL wine (and interested readers letters on the same article) under the pretence of fighting corruption, this is to protest that Customs portrayal of the situation is absolutely false, grossly misleading the public, and yet another example of certain politicians abusing their power for their own business interests and protection. This statement is not unfounded, which readers will hopefully conclude for themselves after being aware of the full facts, and facts which are known to the Government authority who ultimately decided the destruction of the wine, after its initial decision to allow TRL to receive the wine.

The facts

- Tonga Rugby League (TRL) is a non-profit organization existing to develop the sport in Tonga and facilitate the career opportunity for talented young rugby league players in Tonga, targeting overseas clubs (which can contribute to increasing remittance and tourism into Tonga for those who get a chance overseas). Over the years, TRL has been responsible for local players overseas tours, local competitions, joint programs with overseas clubs, and helping players development and careers generally.

- Support of players is carried out by TRL through its own funding efforts, monetary and in-kind donations of businesses and individuals in Tonga, and donations and/or in-kind support of the Tongan community overseas and overseas sporting clubs.

- TRL is not financially supported by the Government, as many other sporting organizations currently receive. This is not a problem for TRL, as TRL has proven that Government's non assistance of the sport (and potential overseas careers of Tongan footballers) is not a reason for those outside Government to ignore the local talent.

- Mr. Marcello Casella, owner of Casella Wines of Griffith, Australia, was nominated and endorsed by the TRL Board as its International Business Advisor.

- For the above reasons, Mr. Marcello Casella, of Casella Wines, Australia, was moved to support the TRL efforts. Casella Wines donated to TRL this one 20ft container of wine to support local developments and talents of our youth in all levels.

- The financial condition of TRL could not afford to clear the whole container of wine at one time. TRL strategy, however, was to clear the wine at a pace not to affect the sales and businesses of local wine importers, but only at a scale to inject enough funds to the operations of TRL on a timely basis to secure its purposes. And TRL did exactly that with full approval of the Minister for Revenue.

- The Minister for Revenue, Hon. Teisina Fuko, (supported by the CEO/Commissioner for Revenue), accepted the merits of the gift and why the wine was valued as such, and gave the approval for TRL to receive the wine subject to TRL fulfilling the necessary requirements.

- Based on this proper and legal approval, Customs released the quantity of wine (in two lots) that TRL was able to pay duty for while it satisfied the remaining requirements (e.g. liquor and import licenses, which it subsequently did before destruction of the wine) and continuing to pay for further release of wine as and when TRL could pay the Government duties.

- All of a sudden, TRL are advised by a lesser official, Peter Nash, Head of Customs, who has no legal authority to decide the destruction of goods, suggests that the Minister and CEO got it wrong and therefore the wine should be destroyed! The Head of Customs gave no regards for the reasons which the Minister for Revenue had based his decision on and gave TRL the opportunity to receive the gift/in kind donation.

- Peter Nash's insistent efforts did lead to the same authority overturning and ignoring its prior approval and agreement with TRL, and decided to destroy the wines under a pretense of 'illegal importation' (i.e. no import license at the time, but did accept for TRL to satisfy this requirement, which it did before destruction of the wine) and the undervaluing of the wine as 'corruption' (i.e. the proper authority who accepted the wine as a gift to TRL and its valuation, changed its mind and the wine was undervalued and therefore corruption), although the proper authority originally approved all of this and approved the release of wine at a pace so as not to affect sales of local wine importers.

TRL is left with the following questions:

- What other interest did Peter Nash really represent in this situation?

- TRL has very reliable information that Peter Nash's insistence to destroy the wine after the Minister's approval, was due to complaints of a couple of wine import businesses following a meeting with Peter Nash. For this disregard of the Minister's proper and legal approval and acting on the complaint of 2 business owners.

- What political interference gave Peter Nash the courage to contest the authority of the Minister and insist that the wine be destroyed under the pretense of illegal importation and corruption?

- What higher authority than the Minister of Revenue could have given Peter Nash the courage to act against the Minister's original approval? What political pressure was placed on the Minister to change his original approval?

- Who benefited from the destruction of TRL wine?

- No one benefited, except those who had a business interest in its destruction. This is not fighting corruption! This is a show to make the public believe government is actually doing something about corruption - the effort to destroy the wine would make someone think we were talking about importation of firearms or drugs! Government doesn't help rugby league and the local players, and those that do help within the approved authority of the law are not even given one ounce of assistance.

What Customs/Government could and should have done?

- The Minister's authority and arrangement agreed with TRL should have been respected, rather than allowing political pressure to cause Peter Nash to disregard this authority and insist on the destruction of legitimate goods borne from the sweat of others and gifted to TRL / Tonga. For Customs to now explain away their destruction of the wine as 'illegal importation' and 'corruption' is complete rubbish because the proper authority was aware of the full situation and made a conscious decision to work with TRL based on its mandate and nature of Casella Wines donation.

- If the destruction was on 'suspicion' of unfair competition (because their reason of illegal importation and corruption is nonsense) the arrangement was in place for Customs to monitor and enforce it. . . and to ensure enforceable measures are put in place to allow TRL's access to the donation whilst ensuring protection of the market - there are avenues that Customs could have and should have pursued to meet this objective other than destruction of the wine, which the Minister for Revenue and TRL agreed. TRL would have welcomed other additional measures, but this is Peter Nash's job to ensure any additional measures needed to support the Minister's approval, however he failed to do his job and set his mind on destruction of the wine.

TRL is like many other organizations in Tonga who rely on the assistance of others outside Government for the development of their field, and for the benefit of all rather than a few. If this effort cannot be supported by Government within the law (which in this situation the law proved it can assist as originally given by the proper authority) then the law is made useless because it can be used by officials for their own interest and interpret it as they wish. In other words, this situation proves that the same law that allowed TRL access to the donation/gift in the first place, can also be used against TRL to prohibit development of a sporting sector because of the business interests of those in power. What then is the use of the law to protect everyone and given everyone a fair chance, when those in power choose who they want to play in the same field they play in? This is the reality of the 'level playing field' that government continually preaches about!

Yours sincerely,

Siosaia Moehau
Chairman
Tonga Rugby League

See also: TRL did not appeal against seizure of prohibited wine import [2]