Written By: - Date published: 8:33 am, June 4th, 2008 - 82 comments
Categories: election funding, john key, rumour, slippery -
Tags: Electoral Finance Act, secret trusts
It’s funny the stories you hear when you’re out in the provinces. I was up in Auckland over the long weekend and came across someone who told me the story of how Key became involved in National.
See, Key was never political growing up and certainly not strongly National. He can’t remember where he stood on the Springbok Tour and he says he voted for Mike Moore a couple of times in the 1980s. But it seems that in 1999, Key’s sister met National Party President John Slater, whose eyeballs turned into little cartoon dollar signs when he heard of John’s enormous wealth and interest in adding MP (or even PM) to his CV.
Key was given a meeting with PM Jenny Shipley, who with not so much as a ‘thus, do I ever make my fool my purse’ hatched a plan. Key would be offered a safe National seat in the 2002 election (he returned to NZ permanently just before the 2002 selection process); the troublesome Brian Neeson in Helensville would be pushed to one side, and, in return, Key would make substantial donations to National.
How substantial? Well, substantial enough that it would be a scandal if the public found out. So, National had him channel his donations through a group of anonymous trusts, principally the Waitemata Trust, which National uses to hide the identity of its large donors. In total, it’s said he gave up to $1.5 million between 1999 and 2005. More money may have secured his leadership in 2006 (ironically, National is now sitting on piles of cash it can’t channel through sock-puppets because of the EFA).
All this looks very bad; Key may be the first person to try to literally buy himself the Prime Ministership. The people of New Zealand deserve to know the truth. It’s time for National to open the accounts of the Waitemata Trust and its other secret trusts, and for Key to come clean on how much he donated in return for his seat.
[Update: I've since heard lower figures than $1.5 million, but the truth still needs to be told.]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Felix,
I thought the “Clark’s a lesbian” story was made up, like the “Key bought his seat” story is, in my estimation, made up. But now you’re telling me I should have made up a story.
Colour me confused.
captcha: careful swearing (I’ve always preferred that to reckless swearing)
It is worth noting that John Key only joined the National Party in order to become a parliamentary candidate. For most of his adult life, he was not even a passive member of the party (or any political organisation of any kind). His sizeable financial contributions began only when he decided to enter politics himself.
That says nothing at all about any alleged “seat buying”. It does, however, say quite a lot about his priorities. Most people join a party because they support what the party stands for. John Key joined National to support John Key.
Steve RE: Media privilege,
There’s a reason it’s called qualified privilege. That’s because you don’t get blanket privilege just because you’re talking about politicians, you have to be responsible in your journalism in order to hold onto this legal privilege.
To quote your link, “reckless or irresponsible journalism” does not acquire this qualified privilege. That means doing some of the below: checking your sources, substantiating any rumour, verifying the information with the person who you’re targetting, even offering them a chance to comment.
And Robinsod – go and read about honest opinion a little bit more, you need a factual basis to deduce your opinion from not an honest opinion based on an opinion. You’re view on defamation is if I use a rumour to substantiate spreading another rumour then it’s honest opinion. I think you’ll find most of the case law disagrees with you.
Yeah right Steve!!
You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Maybe you should save some of your bullshit until the election is a little closer, or will you just keep making this stuff up as you go along.
I really did not think I was going to write ever again on this blog being threatened with a ban because of 911 but this is just to good.
John Key met with Tame Iti two months (August) before Tame “the terrorist” was arrested for allegedly threatening to kill John Key.
Two years of investigations, listening in on the “terrorists” phone calls and John Kay is allowed to meet them without police and with the police’s written assurances that he will be safe’
I wondered about that, and asked one of my sources what the f*&k is going on.
He told me that John Key was trying to buy Tame Iti’s and some the peoples around him their vote. Puts a new light on John Key’s and Tame’s hongi doesn’t it.
here is the article in the mainstream press: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeFyee9xj68&eurl=http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/040608_b_Coast.htm
The attraction of this story (Key buying his seat) is that it does align with other pieces of information that indicate National whores for cash.
For example, Brian Rudman has referred to Peter Shirtcliffe’s money as a major force within National. The secret trusts that clearly aunder millions of dollars from anonymous donors can only lend credibility to these stories….true or not.
I’m paraphrasing a famous aphorism by saying: “It isn’t good enough that there be financial transparency. Financial transparency must be SEEN to be done.”
I think that applies here. National will always be vulnerable to claims that it is for sale to highest bidder while anonymous millions continue to be laundered through trusts that are most definitely not transparent and open to scrutiny.
That is the consequence of any party hiding who supports it and for how much.
hmm – “qualified privilege” pertains only to reporting on the house and some local government and court proceedings. I don’t see what it has to do with this situation other than your desire to (mis)use an important sounding term.
Oh oops wrong link. Well, it was three o’clock in the morning.
Here is the right link to the article about John Key visiting Tame Iti
only two months before Tame was arrested for allegedly wanting to kill amongst others John Key.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1320238/1447560
Captcha:insult longest?
Robinsod -
It was Mr Pierson’s claim that there is a “media privilege on covering politicans as a defence to defamation”. That was why I pointed out that the media privilege/qualified privilege that he was referring to is somewhat less wide than he believes it to be.
Also again you’re not up with qualified privilege – go and read about it, particularly Lange v Atkinson and you’ll find that it doesn’t just cover reporting on the house, local government etc.
Full Parliamentary privilege protects the media when they report on speech in the House, not Qualified Privilege. Qualified Privilege is a different beast altogether which covers the media talking more generally about political matters tied to particular politicians but in a responsible manner.
Full Parliamentary privilege protects the media when they report on speech in the House
No it protects them when they report speech from the house. When they report *on* speech from the house (which is to say they offer opinion on what has been said) they are covered by qualified privilege.
Having said that it’s been nearly a decade since I’ve needed to read defamation law so I may have to go back and have a look.
Utter disgrace.
This is why labour is twenty six points behind in the polls. Do you really think steve that making up lies like this you will have a chance at not getting humiliated at the election?
This is why labour is twenty six points behind in the polls.
Well you can’t argue with logic like that.