OPINION: A few years ago WikiLeaks published diplomatic cables, including a number which related to New Zealand. Do you remember how the extension of the controversy to our shores led to mass voter disillusionment that dealt a fatal blow to the Government? Me neither.

Then there is the populist wave that has been sweeping the Western world for the past half-decade or so. Remember how the Internet-Mana Party tapped into widespread disenchantment to change the face of politics forever? No, I don't remember that one either.

The current international controversy that we are told could change everything here is the "Panama Papers", which relate to information leaked from a Panamanian firm setting out the asset holdings of a large number of very wealthy people, including a number of important figures in foreign governments. Unsurprisingly, local political and media interests are doing their best to shoehorn the international hullabaloo into our own domestic debate.

Of course, the leaked documents have yet to notably implicate any New Zealanders in anything illegal. If you look into reporting of the matter from overseas sources and analysts with access to the leaked data, you'll see very little mention of New Zealand. That might well change but, for now, it does present a bit of a problem.

One course of action would be to restrict coverage to the international news for the time being. The fear of missing out appears to be pretty strong within the New Zealand commentariat, however, and local analysts would seem to prefer to awkwardly climb on the bandwagon now rather than wait to see how things shake out. And so in the absence of anything substantive to report, we have to make do with the usual speculation, conjecture and half-formed wonderings about what the story could possibly some day maybe theoretically mean for the local political scene if New Zealanders ever show signs of being bothered over things that may or may not have potentially happened.

For example, there's no suggestion that the prime minister himself makes use of a foreign trust (or, indeed, does anything illegal). However, we are told by political analysts that he has a perception problem since his long-time lawyer works for a firm that advises on such trusts for other clients. Again, there has been no suggestion that the services provided to those other clients are in any way provided illegally or unethically.

Let us put to one side for one moment the fact that the same commentators pronouncing on the unfortunate public perception of the matter are the people who are responsible for shaping public perception. That's bad enough. But are the pickings really so slim that the best we can do is try to impose some guilt by association on the basis of your lawyer's other clients. I wonder how many television reporters would like being told that they have a perception problem because the firm they used to buy their house also defends criminals?

Moving from the particular to the general, there have even been some murmurings about the very ethics of trusts themselves. This is easy to do, because trust law is complicated and it is not hard for commentators with little knowledge of the subject to make them sound sinister (whether this is intended or not). The fundamental trust concept is, however, a crucial element of our legal system that dates back to ancient Rome.

Have you ever made a will? You might be surprised to learn that you are involved in the creation of a trust. Did you register all the details with the Government after doing so? I'm betting no. After the revolution, feel free to denounce yourself as a participant in the corrupt capitalist system of oppression.

At an even more abstract level, the question is raised whether the Panama Papers point to a more generalised problem of wealthy people exploiting loopholes to minimise tax in a way that is legal, but somehow unfair. The Panama Papers may not themselves be directly on point here as far as New Zealand is concerned, but the argument is that they serve as a useful entrée to the subject. And it is an interesting debate.

The purpose of taxation used to be the efficient raising of the revenue required for state spending. There now seems to be a view that, far from being a necessary evil, the levying of tax is a positive thing unto itself. Under this model, it's greedy for those who already pay the most to not want to pay more than they are legally required and it's somehow not greedy for the rest of us to demand that they do.

A good philosophical question. But if you want New Zealanders to treat it as food for thought, you'll need to serve up more than the thin gruel of lame international comparisons.