Written By: - Date published: 6:51 pm, September 22nd, 2008 - 187 comments
Categories: corruption, john key -
Tags: tranzrail, tvnz
One News has just run the revelation that John Key lied to the public and to Parliament about the extent of his shareholding in Tranzrail while using his position to ask questions about the Government’s intentions for rail.
More importantly, it seems he met with Rail America in his capacity as National’s transport spokesperson to encourage the company to go ahead with its intention to purchase Tranzrail. He said in a newsletter that he hoped:
the interest shown by Rail America will be picked up by others.
Having pumped the sale without declaring his interest, he then divested of 50,000 Tranzrail shares, doubling his money within five weeks.
The public needs to know what went on during that meeting with Rail America. We also need to know the full details of all Key’s holdings and an investigation needs to be held into whether he has misused his position for financial gain anywhere else.
Given one of National’s favourite taunts over the last three years has been ‘corruption’, one can only hope the media will see real corruption for what it is.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Anita,
Yours is a valid question that only he can answer. Whereas we can only speculate. When we speculate though, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation.
The questions were put to him on the spot (as I understand it). I challenge anyone to recall specific details on matters that may not be important to them in such a situation.
You guys are making me want to listen to Bob Dylan. Ok, now that you’ve staked our a “must perform to perfection” position on ethics, explain Labour away. But even if you choose not to, please, try to grasp the fact that there’s no “corruption” involved here. No influence peddling, no profiteering, no insider information.
Macro,
I am tempted by the idea that Key is a habitual liar when asked a question his first reaction is defensive truth burying.
Not a great trait for political longevity. Maybe that makes him the perfect National leader from his colleagues’ point of view; he has a shot at a National victory, but odds are he’ll get caught out soon enough and they’ll get to replace him.
Trader, thanks for clearing that up.
“no corruption involved here. No influence peddling, no profiteering, no insider information.”
Glad you got that straightened out with your rigourous reasoning.
Nice to see all these new trolls here. Not expecting great things from any of them based on tonight’s performance but you never know.
Who knows why he did it, but look at the dates:
Go ahead and try and tell the people that items A, B, and D are unrelated to items C and E. Especially seeing he’s been so slippery about it.
Felix, please read the post. I did not say that.
RedLogix, I agree he should have disclosed. Where we disagree is as to the implications of non-disclosure for an opposition MP with little-to-no power at that point. Also, the size of a holding relative to a person’s total holding is relevant to the significance (and consequences) of non-disclosure in a public context.
Danny,
I believe the issue of his shareholding was raised in Parliament a few months ago, he then responded a short time later. Someone (media? Labour?) went away and checked his response and found something dubious in it (dates?) he then had a while before responding (and had done his research in the meantime). A quick check in google news says that fuss stretched over more than seven days in early July.
There is absolutely no reason he could not have fully disclosed the situation at the time.
And in all of this is the overlooked fact that the Government made this story on the back of the share register it acquired by buying Tranzrail. If the Government is going to selectively release bits of that share register, it should release it all, actually. It’s pretty unethical to use company records in this way, another topic for another day, perhaps, but pretty distressing for those of us who buy shares in companies that the Government swallows up. Still, a good diversion from the findings tonight about WP. And if that isn’t trading on inside information (direct from the Deputy PM), nothing is.
You guys are making me want to listen to Bob Dylan
I AM listening to Bob! Just have to get the “30 year Celebration Concert” CD to complete the lot.
“try to grasp the fact that there’s no “corruption’ involved here. No influence peddling, no profiteering, no insider information.”
You don’t know that. But its kinda weird how he sold off all his shares just 2 days after asking a question in the house.
* June 11, 2003 – under questioning by Mr Key in Parliament, Dr Cullen expresses his view that Tranz Rail is carrying hundreds of millions worth of liabilities;
* June 13, 2003 – Mr Key’s family trust sells its 50,000 Tranz Rail shares for $48,000 — a loss of $132,000
But even if you choose not to, please, try to grasp the fact that there’s no “corruption’ involved here. No influence peddling, no profiteering, no insider information.
1. Failure to declare and recuse regarding a conflict of interest IS a form of corruption.
2. Without knowing exactly what was said when Key met with Rail America, knowing can say whether or not “influence was peddled” or not; but it was most certainly an inappropriate meeting given the actual conflict of interest.
Fascinating how the right has spent the last few years screaming fake outrage “corruption” at every opportunity…. and then they fail to recognise the most elementary form of it on their own doorstep.
Anita,
That’s a factual matter. If you are correct then yes, your question is more relevant and he best explain.
keep a clean nose, watch the plainclothes, you dont needa weatehrman to tell which way trhe wind blows subterranean homesick blues
randal wins (again).
(I’m still chuckling over the “deleted cranimum” line mate. All is forgiven.)
Danny
“Alternatively, he was acting at all times in the interests of the National Party and his constituents with little or no regard to what was essentially a small holding relative to his total worth.”
I take it back, you were saying he only wanted to make a little money, relatively speaking.
“Also, the size of a holding relative to a person’s total holding is relevant to the significance (and consequences) of non-disclosure in a public context.”
So an MP with less money than Key should be held to a higher standard than Key?
Macro, you said: “its kinda weird how he sold off all his shares just 2 days after asking a question in the house …
* June 11, 2003 – under questioning by Mr Key in Parliament, Dr Cullen expresses his view that Tranz Rail is carrying hundreds of millions worth of liabilities;
* June 13, 2003 – Mr Key’s family trust sells its 50,000 Tranz Rail shares for $48,000 — a loss of $132,000″
On June 13 the information you allege he traded on was public. That trade is not the issue.
Anita
“Not a great trait for political longevity. Maybe that makes him the perfect National leader from his colleagues’ point of view; he has a shot at a National victory, but odds are he’ll get caught out soon enough and they’ll get to replace him.”
Yes I tend to agree – is this behind the leaks etc?
There doesn’t seem to be a great deal of cohesion in the National caucus. Too many people don’t seem to know what the policy is (or are they afraid to tell the truth?)
Danny
“On June 13 the information you allege he traded on was public. That trade is not the issue.”
I beg to differ! The question was to ascertain the liabilities of the company he had holdings in.. and when it was revealed hundreds of millions!! Well then! what would you do??? Hold on and possibly lose more?
Now if that is not an abuse of power then what is?
capital dateline: today
mysterious chese like object first reported as an ice berg but later thought to be the nationals party policy on cheese washed up on wellington beach.
Macro, do you mean the question or the trade, or both (when you allege abuse of power)?
Macro, National no longer care about policy, and they don’t know what they think. They simply want the baubles. It’s a bloody outrage that they should have to ask labour party types questions in the house in order to try and get some info to help with their portfolios.
Totally the sort of situation a Tory up with which, should not have to put.
… thought to be the nationals party policy on cheese washed up on wellington beach.
… boffins from Te Papa say the resemblance to whale vomit is only possibly coincidental.
If only any Government policy was worth its weight in whale vomit. And so, goodnight. Have fun trying to shape the story.
“… Richard Prebble declared his own conflict as a director and shareholder of Mainfreight. John Key said nothing about his shareholding in Tranz Rail.”
So, maybe I’m being a bit slow here, but Prebble is able to see an obvious conflict of interest and declares it (presumably leaves select committee hearing.)
John Key, on the other hand “intensely questions Cullen about the TranzRail deal at (the same) select committee.”
Your not going to tell me that at the back of JKs mind he’s not jabbering to himself “Do I hold or dump? Do I hold or dump? Fuck. Gotta get more info to make the right decision!”
So, he sold two days later at a loss. Was it less of a loss than if he’d held on longer?
The bastard was sitting in a meeting where he had a clear conflict of interest and didn’t declare it because to do so might have meant even more pain for him in the only place he has that registers feeling….his grubby little pocket.
Fuck him.
[lprent: deleted. I do not approve of attempts to hijack identities. It isn't funny. ]
“Hand in the Till” doesn’t really work as a metaphor. It suggests stealing of money, from the taxpayer. By my maths JK lost $103,500 overall of his personal money in all his Tranzrail shares.
Cullen and Clark are not stupid. They know that the only legs in this story is one of credibility, not corruption. That is what they will try and attack Key about in Parliament tomorrow.
Pat
JK lost a lot less money because of his actions. He may have taken a bath but his use of his office as an MP and Transport spokesperson meant that he took less of bath than he would have otherwise. Nice smokescreen but legally and ethically it carries no weight.
Clark and Cullen will attack Key because he is better off than he otherwise would have been because of the use of his office as MP and spokesperson for Transport. How is this not corruption?
So what is the next Crosby Textor attack line?
No Micky, Clark and Cullen won’t take the corruption line becuase it is too tenuous. They will attack the trust/honesty issue of him not being up front about how many shares he had, and his botched answer today. This dovetails into the whole Trust campaign. All they want is to show Key up as evasive and untrustworthy.
Did you hear key actually say ‘no one asked me” – what a classic – and what a hypocrit – exactly what he had a go at Helen over. The look on his face in TV tonite was priceless – see how the fake smile comes right up at first withthe beaming denial (lie) – but it slipped and he was shitting himslef….much much more to come…
“Janet
September 22, 2008 at 9:33 pm
JK’s behaviour over these shares, and some of his actions in his money trader days, may have been legal but they are certainly not ethical. His attacks on Helen and Winston etc have left him open to accusations of hypocrisy. ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ (that’s from the Bible for you young atheists – but it still useful guidance for today).
”
Thats why Key left it to people like Farrar and Act to dirty themselves over.
Personally I’m looking foward to 10 posts a day every day for a month on why John Key is corrupt over at kiwi blog, not quite sure how hes going to smear Labour with it though.
Redlogix
It’s not failing to recognise it – it’s failing to accept that one of their own got caught out doing it.
Hi RedLogic,
On which thread did Randal make the deleted cranium remark. I would like to have a good laugh too and I drool with anticipation as to whom he made that remark to(I can think of a few though. LOL)
To all of youse,
OK Here we have a “politician” who is apparently still very much trading in his “spare” time.
I didn’t think being a “passionate” politician coming back from the cold hard banking world to help your little country achieve “greatness” and a real family guy would leave you much but there you have it.
Doesn’t it make you want to know what other shares he has?
Perhaps (and this is pure speculation) a few thousand nice Haliburton shares or Boeing or Exxon or Raetheon or some other nice military industrial complex shares. Shares that need wars to make a profit.
Iraq anyone?
travellerev – what, you mean like shares in Cullens super fund?!?
When you have over $50 Million Dollars it’s probably a little hard to remember exactly how many shares in what company you actually have.
If you come form a Position of Envy Politics unfortunately you will look for stories that aren’t there. Key lost $48,000 on his trans-rail shares big deal.
Can someone please tell me how that is caught with the hand in the till when you lose money. This story has no legs guys and definitely isn’t as big as Helen’s when she committed Art Fraud. Sorry to pee on your party.
GtR – he remembered pretty bloody fast when he was asked by Fran…
GtR,
When you have already been questioned about it and already had to admit that you were a little less than fully accurate you’d expect that you’d've got on top of the detail.