Easy to clear up the question

Written By: - Date published: 9:56 am, September 28th, 2008 - 9 comments
Categories: john key, slippery - Tags:

An article in yesterday’s Herald raised some more questions over how Key has handled the management of his share portfolio. However it looks like it would be easy enough for him to clear up. According to Paula Oliver:

Eyebrows were raised around Parliament this week when Mr Key said Mr Leggat could buy shares with his money in the trust without first asking him….But Mr Key said his arrangement with Mr Leggat was “informal” and there was no written documentation regarding the arrangement.

Stock exchange rules of the time would appear to suggest there should have been – something Mr Key does not want to elaborate on. Mr Leggat said he could not talk about the issue of discretion because of client confidentiality,

Given Mr Key’s committment to be open and transparent why doesn’t he just give Mr Leggat permission to talk about the arrangement? Or is it because he has once again been slippery with his descriptions? I would suspect after last week, where Mr Key showed considerable ease in his “mis-direction” of the media, that it makes sense to for someone at least ask.

9 comments on “Easy to clear up the question ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. the sprout 1
    28 September 2008 at 10:31 am

    Interesting that the media persist in portraying all this as a ‘mistake’. not normally a helpful defensive position to take, claiming errors of judgement, unless it helps make you look more human. but claiming an error of course isn’t as bad as the alternative: Key as dishonest and self-interested.

    There should be a special re-convening of the Priviledges Committee to investigate the issue of Mr Key’s Tranzrail shares. Why wouldn’t Mr Key be willing to meet the same standards of accountability that he’s insisted on with Peters?
    mc

  2. ghostwhowalks 2
    28 September 2008 at 11:09 am

    AS I understand it, Parliament has been dissolved along with the Privileges Committee.

    perhaps the Stock Exchange could refer Leggat to its disciplinary process. Maybe Leggat could protect his own reputation by releasing emails showing Key instructed the sophisticated investment play but I wouldnt hold my breath

  3. the sprout 3
    28 September 2008 at 12:02 pm

    that’s why it’d have to be a ‘special re-convening’ and all.

  4. jason rika 4
    28 September 2008 at 12:25 pm

    As an aside, if you say John Key in a french accent fast enough see what you come up with. Quite appropriate really.

  5. Tamaki resident 5
    28 September 2008 at 12:47 pm

    I posted this on an earlier thread, but (imho) think that it’s worth sharing again!

    Why is it taking so long for Key to set up a blind trust? He has been trying to mislead the general public by saying that it was his trust that was trading in the shares (implication: not me!), when in reality he was in the driving seat.

    Why will he not buy NZ shares for this blind trust? Conflict of interest is cited as the reason, but surely there can be as much conflict of interest from overseas companies, especially if, for example, foreign insurance companies start taking over ACC responsibilities.

  6. Felix 6
    28 September 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Jean Key?

    I don’t get it.

  7. outofbed 7
    28 September 2008 at 1:35 pm

    shonkey?

  8. Go The Right 8
    28 September 2008 at 3:57 pm

    I believe these question asked of the Prime Minster will be very intresting when answered. After all this Election is all about trust.

    http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2008/09/questions-for-t.html

    It appears they are rhetorical questions and may be Labour could be a little hypocritical when the facts come out about Labour MPs

  9. bill brown 9
    28 September 2008 at 4:27 pm

    Hey Rob, why would anyone answer a rhetorical question?

    Or did you cut paste that from two different posts. You don’t know what rhetorical means do you?