131 The defendants rely upon his interview, in that it was submitted by their counsel that he explained that many of those persons whose names appeared in the wage and salary columns of internal Group documents could well be contractors, since it was the policy of Sergio, and later of other members of the family, to ensure that wherever possible persons were hired as contractors, rather than employees. That explanation seems to me to be preposterous, and I would not accept it. If it was, indeed, a policy of such importance that Sergio (a man of forceful personality), and later other members of the family, had "insisted" that persons be employed as contractors wherever possible, one would have expected that they would have also insisted that documents would reflect the extent to which that policy was being carried out; that is, that there would be a careful separation between contractors and employees. Further, the operational results had as their sole purpose ensuring that monthly expenditure could be carefully monitored. The only rational way to do that would be to distinguish between contractors, in respect of whom no tax liability arose, and wages employees. The operational results go so far as to distinguish between different categories of fuel, and there would seem to be no reason, other than one based on a dishonest attempt to avoid liability for taxation, that the same distinction could not have been made between wages employees and contractors. Further, as I have noted earlier in discussing other aspects of the evidence, there are internal documents which clearly show what might be called "true" contractors, such as entries for shearing contractors.