Hand in the till

189 comments on “Hand in the till ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Monty 1

   22 September 2008 at 6:56 pm

   Overall John Key lost money on his share holding in Rail, he sold them early any information he had was in the public areana. Is this the neutron Bomb? is that all you have. This is an old story and there is no news. Any information Key may have had was already in the public areana.

   Is this the reason why Cullen bought the train set?

   I personally do not give a stuff over his share holdings 5 years ago.

   Is the diversion that Labour so desperately need as the Privilages committee reports back tonight?
   
   Irishbill: Monty, that’s the worst attempt at misdirection I have ever seen.
2. LAX 2

   22 September 2008 at 6:57 pm

   Corruption?

   Are you talking about Winston or Helen?
3. Carol 3

   22 September 2008 at 7:00 pm

   It’s not so much the fact he did it, so much as that he fudged it and was less than open when talking about it until directly challenged on the amount.’

   Shows he can be devious & not as forthright and open as he has been claiming he is.
4. Monty 4

   22 September 2008 at 7:00 pm

   No LAX – this is the diversion to hide the corruption of Winston and Helen – and what she knew and hid for 6 months in relation to Winston’s $100,000 donation. This is Clark’s Neutron fizzer!
5. Pat 5

   22 September 2008 at 7:03 pm

   Tane – tell the truth. He did not double his money. He lost money.
6. LAX 6

   22 September 2008 at 7:07 pm

   Monty

   Do you think the hosts here really want a debate about corruption?

   Somehow I doubt it.
7. Inventory2 7

   22 September 2008 at 7:07 pm

   The real story here is why is TVNZ running interference for the government by running stories at the behest of the Labour Research Unit?
8. Concerned of Tawa 8

   22 September 2008 at 7:08 pm

   Labour has blown it again!

   A chance to land a blow to Key and what do they do, cynically release the bomb to divert from the Winston-Helen Cash-for-Honours rort and then allow Cullen to front the story with all his huff and puff.

   Any doubts about Key diminish as NZ is reminded about how awful Cullen is. The man should wear an EFA authorisation as a vote to National.

   Key -3, Cullen -10
9. Oliver 9

   22 September 2008 at 7:09 pm

   Tane,

   When one takes the time to read the article properly and skip past the headline it becomes clear to see that this is one tenth the issue that you’tr trying to build it into at a time when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prme Minister are busy trying to undermine a law-enforcement body that’s working hard to hold criminals and suspected criminals to account.
10. gobsmacked 10

    22 September 2008 at 7:10 pm

    Almost all the media took Key’s word when he was accused by Clark in the House of failing to disclose his rail share interest, a couple of months ago. They believed him. He misled the media, and the House. Key’s got some grovelling to do now.

    What a priceless moment in the interview, when he answered “50,000”, and then only after being challenged, decided to tell us it was “100,000”. No wonder he spends all his time campaigning with cute kiddies and sycophants – as soon as a journalist gets near him with a real question he falls to pieces.
11. LAX 11

    22 September 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Come on Oliver, you should know by now that Clark and Labour are above the law.

    It’s called courageous corruption.
12. roger nome 12

    22 September 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Monty: As carol has said, the issue is Key’s sustained deception regarding his ownership of shares in a company which has involved the possibility of a conflict of interest.

    Also, if he had nothing to hide and nothing to gain, why wasn’t he just open and honest with the public from the start?
13. Brett Dale 13

    22 September 2008 at 7:16 pm

    So lets see here, John Key and his family bought and sold some shares and he got no more information than the average member of the public, I dont think that is a crime.

    Although I got a good giggle, when the socialist reporter on TVNZ, asked him, “Did you sell your shares for a profit?”

    Believe it or not, that is the general idea of sharetrading.
14. Pat 14

    22 September 2008 at 7:19 pm

    I agree it was not a good look when he fudged the amount. But he got there, in the end. At least he didn’t hold up a “No” sign.
15. gobsmacked 15

    22 September 2008 at 7:19 pm

    “A spokesman for Key told The Press that Key’s family trust had bought 30,000 shares in TranzRail in 2002 but sold them before Key began commenting on the company.” (03 July 2008).

    Now we know that statement is false, or at best is lying by omission. Key deliberately misled the media, and they took his word. He’s got some explaining to do.
16. Monty 16

    22 September 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Roger – if you want to talk about deception then you must talk about Clark not saying she knew about the $100,000 gift to Winnie that she knew about (and probably a whole lot more) back is February. She says she was never asked. This issue is five years old, and at the time Key was a new green back bencher.

    This is not a story – it is another desperate beat up by Labour. – The left will try and milk it (especially as they are desperate for a diversion with the privilages committee report into the corruption of Winnie now due). When you wantt o talk about honesty – you really must get your home office in order first.

    Should we talk about deliberate fraud (paintergate) honesty – What did Clark know in Feb 08. What is the Vegas trip for Winston all about? There is so much that we do not know – that this issue about John Key does not rate.
17. gobsmacked 17

    22 September 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Stuff.co.nz reports:

    “When John Key’s shareholding in Tranz Rail was first revealed by Prime Minister Helen Clark in July, Mr Key claimed he entered Parliament as an existing shareholder through his family trust and then sold the shares when he wanted to speak out against the government’s buyback of the rail track.

    Reports at the time said Mr Key’s shareholding was limited to 30,000 shares within a family trust. Mr Key did not correct these reports at the time.”

    And he didn’t want to correct that number today either – until he had to.
18. barnsleybill 18

    22 September 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Why pravda would beat up a story like this is beyond belief.
    Unless they were trying to demonstrate that he would continue the golden run of losing money on rail transactions just like Cullen has done.
19. roger nome 19

    22 September 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Brett – as with the Peters issue, it’s the deception involved in his actions which matters, not the legality of them. Actually, considering he has shunned peters, ostensibly for deceiving the public over issues invoving his personal finances, he commes out of this looking an complete hypocrit.
20. Robinsod 20

    22 September 2008 at 7:31 pm

    F*ck you righties are funny – Monty – you win for most desperate but… but… but comment up front.

    So he lost money? Even while cheating and lying? What a loser…

    I also see none of you are commenting on the pump and dump he carried out on his first 50,000 shares…
21. Anita 21

    22 September 2008 at 7:36 pm

    Inventory2,

    The real story here is why is TVNZ running interference for the government by running stories at the behest of the Labour Research Unit?

    I doubt anyone’s going to agree with you.

    No-one ever seems to agree with me that who is feeding information to the media about Peters is a real story.

    How about you and I band together to start a trend of reporting on media’s unwillingness to report on the media being used as a tool of the political spin machines?
22. vto 22

    22 September 2008 at 7:36 pm

    oh deary, not a good look first up. be interesting to see what the story is. 2c thinks oh my giddy aunt he has made a balls-up – for the simple reason that he had already made his moola and why would he waste time and take such politically massive risks on an outfit like this at this time? he is smarter than that (true. one hopes).

    but you know – perception and reality and all that.
23. LAX 23

    22 September 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Robinsod

    What is desperate about asking a simple question?, you guys have raised the issue of corruption and therefore it is reasonable for the numerous cases of Labour party corruption to be brought into the discussion.

    Or are you another left wing hypocrite?
24. IrishBill 24

    22 September 2008 at 7:42 pm

    vto, I’ve known a few traders in my time and they would all take risks that seemed ridiculous considering their financial and social status. I suspect it’s an addiction to the game. I must admit I thought JK was a bit less of a cowboy than that but then again I’ve seen enough of them play nice straight lads when they had to.
25. Robinsod 25

    22 September 2008 at 7:45 pm

    LAX – what Irish said about monty but with less respect…

    I love the tenuous logic you are using to talk about anything other than the fact your mate John Key is a dodgy bugger – it makes me laugh. In an at you kind of a way of course…
26. Pat 26

    22 September 2008 at 7:47 pm

    Best thing JK could do is open the books to the media. If he is smart he would have exited any controversial shares once he become Nat Leader. He would also show he has nothing to hide and difuse the whole story.
27. Quoth the Raven 27

    22 September 2008 at 7:48 pm

    why would he waste time and take such politically massive risks on an outfit like this at this time?

    Greed
28. Robinsod 28

    22 September 2008 at 7:48 pm

    Oh and I’m f*ckn lovin the fact DPF has a piece up correcting the use of a phrase by TV3 – I guess he’s in a holding pattern until the lines come through from Kevin…
29. coge 29

    22 September 2008 at 7:49 pm

    Key used his own money in Transrail. Cullen used the taxpayers, & was roundly ripped off by the Aussies. Incompetance beyond belief.
30. Macro 30

    22 September 2008 at 7:50 pm

    “So lets see here, John Key and his family bought and sold some shares and he got no more information than the average member of the public, I dont think that is a crime.

    Although I got a good giggle, when the socialist reporter on TVNZ, asked him, “Did you sell your shares for a profit?’

    Believe it or not, that is the general idea of sharetrading.”

    AND That Brett is where the corruption – yes it is corruption! – others in similar positions have been accused and found guilty as such – lies. You see J Key asked questions in the house concerning the matter – he also held discussions with other interested parties as well. He should have declared all his interests here – particularly as he was the spokesperson for transport and he didn’t.

    You can spin it all you like! but quite frankly the “holier than thou” stance of the National Leader is rather hollow.

    We have been consistently lied to by J Key – his credibility gap is in deep overdraft.
31. Pat 31

    22 September 2008 at 7:51 pm

    “Why would he waste time and take such politically massive risks on an outfit like this at this time?”

    By “this time” do you mean 2003?
32. IrishBill 32

    22 September 2008 at 7:54 pm

    coge, he used his money but then he didn’t tell us and than he used the access New Zealand voters bequeathed him as a parliamentary representative for his own pecuniary gain. Please explain why that is not corrupt.
33. mickysavage 33

    22 September 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Good post and a big issue.

    Winnie may or not have told lies, it appears that Key may have used information obtained through his job as an MP, bought shares, talked them up, sold them for a profit and then did not tell the truth/avoided answering a correction correctly. Privileges Committee hearing anyone?

    Forex Traders tend to take short term decisions with total indifference to the moral complications involved in the decision or the long term implications. Do we really want this man as our PM?
34. Pat 34

    22 September 2008 at 7:54 pm

    If it is corruption, then charge him. But you better hurry, cause the SFO has only 7 weeks to live if Labour gets back in.
35. vto 35

    22 September 2008 at 7:56 pm

    QtR and IrisBill perhaps, but I would be surprised. He seems so ridiculously driven to achieve whatever goals he chooses that this sort of risk/mistake would never even be remotely approached.

    But we should remember (except when applied to Peters) “a judgment based solely on the prosecution is a worthless judgment” (that’s one of my own, coined during a recent domestic downpour he he)
36. gobsmacked 36

    22 September 2008 at 7:58 pm

    John Key, 3 weeks ago:

    “The appointment of a minister to Cabinet has to be done on the basis that as Prime Minister I can look that person in the eye and have confidence that I can rely on their word.”

    Hmmm.
37. Brett Dale 37

    22 September 2008 at 7:58 pm

    mickysavage

    There is no evidence whatsoever that he used inside information.
38. LAX 38

    22 September 2008 at 8:00 pm

    Sorry to disappoint all of you but this is not the silver bullet.

    The next lot of polls are going to show the gap widening, it is time that you faced the fact that John Key could shoot somebody right in front of the TV camera’s and he will still be our next PM.

    Remember the days when Clark could sack police commissioners unjustifiably and it would not affect here rating?
    Remember the days when Clark could lie about art work and it would not affect her rating?
    Remember the days when Clark could speed across the Canterbury plains and it would not affect her ratings?

    Those days have gone chaps, there is a new man in town and the public of NZ want this man to run the country for at least the next nine years, I suspect they also want him to bring an end to the high level of govt corruption and they also want him to get rid of MMP.
39. Trader 39

    22 September 2008 at 8:01 pm

    I think you’ll find that his smallish profit came VERY early in the sequence and that his rather large loss came later. There’s nothing to suggest he used his position to pump and dump. Even MC says it falls short of insider trading. (CAPTCHA: Lippman overcame )
40. Robinsod 40

    22 September 2008 at 8:02 pm

    There is no evidence whatsoever that he used inside information.

    Brett – I’m super pleased you are also calling for an investigation into this murky situation – especially as I had you picked as a one-eyed retard…
41. coge 41

    22 September 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Irishbill, what you are suggesting does not make sense. It appears you are inexperienced in share market matters. Why not talk about stuff you understand?

    IrishBill: I think you would be surprised to know how much experience I have in the market. Why don’t you talk about the matter at hand?
42. higherstandard 42

    22 September 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Snore
43. Robinsod 43

    22 September 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Hey LAX – I see you’ve fallen back on the “perception is the only issue” defense. Didn’t take long. It reminds me of a particular style of line run by an old mate of mine… You’re not blar are you? ‘Cos if you are you’re messing with our deal…
44. LAX 44

    22 September 2008 at 8:09 pm

    Robinsod

    “especially as I had you picked as a one-eyed retard ”

    Where you born a jerk or is it something that you have had to work at?

    There is no need to be so abusive, yes you might be getting stressed our at the imminent demise of Clark but that is no reason to abuse anybody.

    Or perhaps you are really Trevor Mallard?
45. gobsmacked 45

    22 September 2008 at 8:09 pm

    LAX

    It’s not about silver bullets and smoking guns and other cowboy cliches. It’s about the public interest (and so are the Winston Peters allegations). It is in the public interest to know if John Key has deliberately misled us, and if so, why.

    Nobody has come up with any reason why this is not a legitimate issue, only “look away! over there!”, which is feeble.
46. ghostwhowalks 46

    22 September 2008 at 8:13 pm

    Brett ask your selves why he was buying shares in a ‘dead end’ business like rail any way. Was there a big technology breakthrough !

    Where they going to be a new google.
    hell no , some one gave him a tip.
    Now we want all his phone records at the time he bought and sold the shares so that that the same inquisition that Peters has gone through is used on him. After all we cant trust his memory can we.

    Key is the guy who lied in a statuary declaration about his place of residence for the previous month all so he could win National preselection for a hick place.
    All ready this year we have seen another case of corruption in the preselection process in Rakaia. Yes carter we are talking about you

    BTW , I thought the original issue raised by Cullen was to get his denials on the record.
47. Robinsod 47

    22 September 2008 at 8:14 pm

    LAX – I was born that way and then I honed it some…

    You’re not the first to call me Trev but I like to think of myself as much much smarter than that.

    Oh and just because you’re desperately wishing the demise of Helen ain’t goona make it so. Y’konw – kinda like how you wish you were good-looking, clever and worth talking to at parties…
48. LAX 48

    22 September 2008 at 8:16 pm

    gobsmacked

    It may surprise you but I agree, the public interest has not been served for the best part of nine years and it is a bit rich for the left to demand that it become an issue at the 11th hour in a vain attempt to save the dieing and corrupt Clark govt.

    Key has not deliberately misled anybody at worst we have a “conflict of evidence” or Mr Key “does not have a memory of that”, hell he may even use the line made popular by Helen Clark “well you never asked me”.

    Either way it is not going to hurt National one little bit.
49. higherstandard 49

    22 September 2008 at 8:17 pm

    I heard Key sold his shares in rail so he could invest in baby eating futures.

    Interesting that the EPMU and Labour would like the public to believe a person who gives away his parliamentary salary because he clearly doesn’t need the money has committed some sort of heinous market manipulation with a small shareholding of rail shares.

    captcha Jeanette amounts (to the balance of power post election … maybe)

    IrishBill: EPMU? Labour? That’s a week long ban.
50. Monty 50

    22 September 2008 at 8:21 pm

    Aahhh – so I was right – this non-story is a beat up and a desperate diversion – the real story is the privilages committee report – Kiwiblog reports it is 200 pages long. Roll up roll up Privilages committee report out – that is real news –

    this is a desperate attempt by Labour to divert attention away from how Clark has aided and abetted corruption by one of her senior ministers.
51. Robinsod 51

    22 September 2008 at 8:22 pm

    HaHa! – Suck it up HS – you’re looking more and more like a National hack/troll every day…

    It’ll give you some more time to focus on your “surgery” tho…
    
    IrishBill: unless you settle down and stop pushing for a flame-war you’ll be following HS and you are looking at at least two weeks next time.
52. coge 52

    22 September 2008 at 8:23 pm

    Irishbill, since you claim to have involvement in equities, you will understand how it is often impossible to provide an accurate answer as to how many are held. As the very nature of trading & the different vehicles used means the numbers held varies over time. Beneficial or non-beneficial? It’s not the sort of question easily addressed on the hop, as you no doubt already know.
53. Anita 53

    22 September 2008 at 8:25 pm

    I don’t understand the way Key has played this.

    A number of years ago he did something incomprehensible with shares. He could have fessed up to the full extent of this weeks/months ago and it would have made no difference to anyone’s perception. Everyone knows he used to work with markets and trading and stuff, and whatever he did it was incomprehensible, and Cullen got worked up, but he always does.

    This year, only a few weeks ago, Key chose to (at least) mislead the public. People will care, how many is not yet clear.

    Why didn’t he just admit to the incomprehensible share thing way before the election campaign? Are his political advisors incompetent? Did he hide the truth from them? Does he lie by habit? Is the issue worse than it appears? Any other explanations?
54. Trader 54

    22 September 2008 at 8:25 pm

    rotfl, would be sheer bathos if it turned into an “a pox on both your houses” sort of thing. Problem is, there’s nowhere else to go – certainly not the sycophantic Greens or theatrical Act, not over something like this. But, still, the title of this thread is way over the top. If you guys could just stop trying to turn every little thing into a king hit, you’d have a lot more influence.
55. Bliss 55

    22 September 2008 at 8:25 pm

    Trader

    Pump and dump?

    As reported by TV3, not illegal (I think, IANAL) but very dodgy

    Then on May 7, 2003 Key bought another 50,000 shares – this time under his own name – for an estimated $22,500.

    A couple of weeks later he met with Rail America, which was considering a bid for Tranz Rail.

    “I hope that the interest shown by Rail America will be picked up by others,” he said at the time in his newsletter, but he still did not say he was a shareholder.

    On June 10, 2003 Key sold his personal parcel of 50,000 shares for about $51,000, doubling his profit in just five weeks.

    He held for a month, over that month he met with a potential buyer and published material that (could be construed to have) promoted the idea that TRANZRAIL was going to be bought. Then he sold.

    IMO it was a foolish thing to do.

    peace
    W
56. mickysavage 56

    22 September 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Brett Dale

    What Key has done is not insider trading in the legal sense. But if any MP was using the knowledge they obtained during their job as an MP to make money then I would be awfully p***d off with them. I would never elect them and I would certainly not want them in charge of my country, to put it frankly I just could not trust them …

    LAX the important poll is the one in about 7 weeks, plenty of time for the Trust theme to have been well and truly established.

    It is irrelevant that another share trade may have resulted in a loss. This is only evidence of incompetence. Key doubled his second (or third?) investment in a short time, this is cause for investigation.
57. Macro 57

    22 September 2008 at 8:27 pm

    hs _ I thought you set higher standards than that! – you obviously approve of lying to the public by National MPs?
58. IrishBill 58

    22 September 2008 at 8:27 pm

    coge, it is expected that a full declaration of interests is offered by all MPS. If Key could not provide a full declaration to parliament how was he able to do so so quickly to a reporter once he realised he’d been busted?
59. higherstandard 59

    22 September 2008 at 8:28 pm

    One week ban for what ??
60. LAX 60

    22 September 2008 at 8:28 pm

    Robinsod

    ” Y’konw – kinda like how you wish you were good-looking, clever and worth talking to at parties ”

    Is there something you want to share with the group Robinsod?, if I had to read between the lines here I would suggest that you are suffering from a rather nasty social disease or perhaps severe acne.

    When one constantly talks ones self up in the fashion you do it often hides a rather disconcerting and frankly worrying level of hopelessness and inadequacy, I might go as far as to suggest that you are one of those chaps who suffers from incredibly small penis syndrome.

    The symptoms are obvious, your high level of abusive behaviour and your constant boasting about your abilities, of course you take solace that nobody (or at worst very few) actually knows who you are in real life so you enjoy (even if it is only for a fleeting moment) the anonymity that the Internet affords you.

    Do not worry about it young man, one day you will find a girl that does not mind that you have a one inch penis, until then you might try and be a little bit nicer to those who disagree with you, it really will help the feelings of inadequacy you so obviously suffer from.
61. vto 61

    22 September 2008 at 8:30 pm

    how did hs get to say that at 8.28 when he’s banned?
62. Robinsod 62

    22 September 2008 at 8:32 pm

    LAX – I’ve had a warning so I’ll go no further but it is becoming apparent to me you are insolent prick. In which case – get over it dear…

    Oh and stop talking about my genitals – you ain’t getting any no matter how much you want it…
63. higherstandard 63

    22 September 2008 at 8:34 pm

    Indeed !!
64. higherstandard 64

    22 September 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Do you only bestow your favours on peers of the realm then ?
65. Pascal's bookie 65

    22 September 2008 at 8:37 pm

    How soon will Key be holding a presser to announce that he will under no circumstances have that man, John Key, in a governemnt led by him.

    LAX gets my vote for lamest new talking point emitter. Upgrade please.
66. Macro 66

    22 September 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Anita

    Perhaps J Key is someone who finds it difficult to be generous with the truth. We have a number of instances of this. The “unopened e-mail” really are we expected to believe that!, the difficulty of remembering Lord whatsisname, the raising /lowering wages saga, The troops to Iraq – no I didn’t! etc.
67. LAX 67

    22 September 2008 at 8:38 pm

    Robinsod

    Touch a raw nerve did I?

    I have no idea who insolent prick is nor who this blar person is.
68. Pascal's bookie 68

    22 September 2008 at 8:40 pm

    vto, I think it runs on the honour system. Which doesn’t work for some.
69. coge 69

    22 September 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Irishbill for reasons I’ve already outlined. I could ask you how many XXX did you own in 2006? You could answer say, 25k, 50k or 100K & be correct on every count. I could disagree with any of those figures & be correct as well.
70. LAX 70

    22 September 2008 at 8:42 pm

    In the mean time the privileges committee has voted to censure Winston.

    Is this finally enough evidence for Clark to sack the man or is she still determined to hold on to him lest he turn ferrell.
71. Trader 71

    22 September 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Bliss – Any evidence that TR shares improved because of Key’s meeting with Rail America? Or that anything he did influenced the market value of the shares? If fact, after Rail America tendered its 75 cent per share offer, the stock dropped to below 50 cents. This is not typically what you think of as pump and dump.
72. Pascal's bookie 72

    22 September 2008 at 8:43 pm

    Seeing (most of) the righties are just frothing, I’m guessing thi thread ain’t gonna get much better..

    We’ll have to wait till kiwiblog gets the approved lines out sometime in the next 24 hours.

    Laters.
73. Quoth the Raven 73

    22 September 2008 at 8:45 pm

    Roll up roll up Privilages committee report out – that is real news –

    Roll up Roll up for the mystery tour…
74. randal 74

    22 September 2008 at 8:45 pm

    his flickering tongue gave him away.
75. ghostwhowalks 75

    22 September 2008 at 8:46 pm

    AS we have seen in the last week Wall St has allways been Bullshit Alley.
    You dont think slippery got to the top of the pole by fair dealing and integrity.

    Even if his mates in the tory press boardrooms paper over the cracks for him tomorrow morning its only going to bring the whole national party crashing down around him over the next few years
76. toad 76

    22 September 2008 at 8:49 pm

    Monty said: …the real story is the privilages committee report -Kiwiblog reports it is 200 pages long.

    Oh, move on Monty. This is all about Peters, and it is, if anything, gaining him votes and increasing the chances of NZF getting back into Parliament.

    Sure, we all know Winston is corrupt, but from the minimal $20K+ rolling donation returns from Labour and National declared last week, I suspect he’s not the only one. The Greens have by far the most donations declared in this category, and they don’t generally have those with money to burn on their side.

    No-one can convince me that the Greens have received more $20K+ donations than Labour or National – well, unless the Greens poll 3-% at the election, in which case I’ll eat my words.

    Anyway, Monty, let’s get over Winston. He should be dog food at the election, but I fear the more we and the MSM attack him, the more he will gain politically as the victimised underdog.

    I would hate to see him and NZF get back, but I think the likes of you and David Farrar are playing nto his hands.
77. Macro 77

    22 September 2008 at 8:49 pm

    coge
    “you will understand how it is often impossible to provide an accurate answer as to how many are held. As the very nature of trading & the different vehicles used means the numbers held varies over time. Beneficial or non-beneficial? It’s not the sort of question easily addressed on the hop, as you no doubt already know.”

    The number is irrelevant – as is whether or not he made money out of the trading – its the fact that he lied about it, and he never declared his interests in the first place!
78. Robinsod 78

    22 September 2008 at 8:53 pm

    LAX – you’re never touching any part of me…

    Back on topic – I reckon this will be the tip of the iceberg. How many other investments d’yah think Key hasn’t declared?
79. Danny 79

    22 September 2008 at 8:54 pm

    This is not corruption, not even close.

    However, we should all have a serious issue with an elected official commenting in their public professional capacity on something they have an direct pecuniary interest in – without disclosing that interest. Regardless of how big or small the interest is.

    After all, this joker is there as a representative.
80. Robinsod 80

    22 September 2008 at 8:57 pm

    This is not corruption, not even close.

    We don’t know that unless we know what was said in Key’s meeting with rail America – especially seeing as they were dealing with him in his capacity as an official representative of New Zealand’s parliament and not as a shareholder in Tranzrail….
81. Macro 81

    22 September 2008 at 8:59 pm

    Danny
    Please explain how not declaring a financial interest in a portfolio you are spokesperson for, is not corruption?
82. coge 82

    22 September 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Macro you have not addressed the issue. In matters of equity trading it is not often possible for any individual to provide an answer that satifies every question. Had Key invested in bonus bonds(& I believe he hasn’t as he is an intelligent man) it would be much easier for him satisfy such questions. This hardly represents lying or corruption, & is more likely another Labour beat-up to cover Winston.
83. Trader 83

    22 September 2008 at 9:05 pm

    Key was out of TR completely by June 2003. In order to get out, he took an earnings bath on his holdings. Hardly “corruption” in any known sense of the word.
84. ghostwhowalks 84

    22 September 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Here is the timeline from NZPA as reported by TV3
    ebruary 15, 2002 – Mr Key’s family trust buys 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail for $108,000;

    * February 19, 2002 – the trust purchases 20,000 more Tranz Rail shares for $72,000;

    * July 27, 2002 – Mr Key is elected to Parliament;

    * October 30, 31, 2002 – Mr Key asks parliamentary questions relating to Tranz Rail and the future of the rail track without disclosing his shareholding;

    April 9, 2003 – in Parliament, Mr Key questions Finance Minister Michael Cullen about secret meetings between the Government and Tranz Rail;

    * April 14, 2003 – Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;

    * April 23, 2003 – Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;

    * May 7, 2003 – Mr Key purchases 50,000 more Tranz Rail shares in his own name for $22,500;

    * May 20, 2003 – in his role as National’s associate transport spokesman Mr Key meets Rail America to discuss its views on Tranz Rail;

    * June 10, 2003 – Mr Key sells the 50,000 Tranz Rail shares he purchased in May for $51,000;

    * 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.

    * June 18, 2003 – Mr Key again attacks the Government’s plans to buy back the rail tracks.

    * October 16, 2003 – Mr Key makes an apparent hypothetical reference in the debate over Pecuniary Interests Legislation to a possible shareholding in Tranz Rail.

    NZPA

    Funny how some claim he wasnt sure of his exact holdings at any time, but wanted the minutes of government meetings
    Who do you think is the detail man

    Remember too Key never dreamed in 2003 he would be catapulted into the leadership so quickly – to replace a discredited Brash
85. Robinsod 85

    22 September 2008 at 9:07 pm

    But coge – if it’s so hard to tell these things how could he answer Fran so fast?
86. Pat 86

    22 September 2008 at 9:08 pm

    So we can all agree that Peters, Clark and Key have either lied or misled the public.

    Therefore, to teach all MP’s a lesson, the only logical option is to make Russell Norman the next Prime Minister.

    (I declare my pecuniary interest as owner of a bike shop).
87. Trader 87

    22 September 2008 at 9:10 pm

    If he continued his line of questioning after he’d sold off his holdings, what make you suppose his line of questioning was inspired by the desire to pump and dump?
88. Macro 88

    22 September 2008 at 9:11 pm

    No coge it is YOU who is not addressing the issue! You are offering every excuse you can dream up but quite frankly it doesn’t wash. Just take a look at the facts above. HE KNEW alright!
89. coge 89

    22 September 2008 at 9:13 pm

    ‘Sod, dunno. Why don’t you ask JK?, either way it is hardly an issue. Trading stocks is very different to buying half-arsed unit trusts. Bank unit trusts are not a thinking persons investment.
90. ghostwhowalks 90

    22 September 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Tarder the timeline shows he loses interest in the details after selling ALL his shares and get back to his day job of attacking the government over TR
91. Robinsod 91

    22 September 2008 at 9:16 pm

    coge – that should be “person’s” (the apostrophe signals possession). I would very much like to ask John Key. I’m glad you have also decided an investigation is necessary…

    Oh and it’s definitely an issue.
92. mickysavage 92

    22 September 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Ghostwhowalks

    Wow.

    Key asks a question, possibly gets some sort of advanced answer that there are lots of liabilities prior to the official answer and dumps his shares? If I was a shareholder and one of my directors did this I would want his head on a spike and then go after his personal assets.

    And when he is asked 5 years after the event it takes 2 seconds for him to remember that he actually did own the shares that he previously denied owning??

    Wow.

    This is really big.

    Who do we want as our PM, Helen who has given us 9 good years, or JK who promises more of Helen but has some memory/ethics difficulties and the forex trader instinct to maximise the next 3 months profits against the future of the country …

    If it is a matter of trust then I know who I am going to vote for …
93. Trader 93

    22 September 2008 at 9:19 pm

    Given the likely size of Key’s portfolio and the fact that the TR shares were being handled by a broker, what makes you imagine that any of this was ever front of mind in those days?
94. Macro 94

    22 September 2008 at 9:20 pm

    “Bank unit trusts are not a thinking persons investment.”
    But SIV’s are?
    Hey don’t try to play the big knowledgeable financial manager guy thingie – we all know they know sweet fannie may.
95. Danny 95

    22 September 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Macro, Robinsod,

    “Please explain how not declaring a financial interest in a portfolio you are spokesperson for, is not corruption?”

    Corruption requires public power and the intentional use of that power for personal gain.

    Applied to Key:

    Firstly, he was a spokesperson, he was not a member of the Government. He was not a decision-maker deciding in his own favour. It was not public power being misused, as such.

    Secondly, there is no evidence of an intention to personally gain. And given the amount in question being small (relatively), that intent is unlikely.
96. Pat 96

    22 September 2008 at 9:22 pm

    “If it is a matter of trust then I know who I am going to vote for ”

    Russell Norman!

    (Great sale on 10 speeds this week BTW)
97. ghostwhowalks 97

    22 September 2008 at 9:23 pm

    This series of events blows holes in the argument that the information he was after was in the public domain

    April 9, 2003 – in Parliament, Mr Key questions Finance Minister Michael Cullen about secret meetings between the Government and Tranz Rail;

    * April 14, 2003 – Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;

    * April 23, 2003 – Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;
98. illuminatedtiger 98

    22 September 2008 at 9:27 pm

    What punitive measures can be taken against Key if it turns out he has misled the New Zealand public?
99. ghostwhowalks 99

    22 September 2008 at 9:27 pm

    Plus there is the likely hood Key was passing on information he was privy to ( in the time lapse between receiving the answers to his questions and them being published in hansard) to others in his share trading ring
100. toad 100

     22 September 2008 at 9:28 pm

     Pat said: Therefore, to teach all MP’s a lesson, the only logical option is to make Russell Norman the next Prime Minister.

     What a brilliant idea!

     A BIG Party Vote GREEN, and it could happen. Come on folks, let’s have a Prime Minister with some principle and integrity!
101. Robinsod 101

     22 September 2008 at 9:29 pm

     It was not public power being misused, as such

     He would not have been able to meet with rail america in the capacity of a public official if he did not have that position (provided for him by the public). If he represented himself as an public official (and not a shareholder) in that meeting and then gained information which he used for gain then he abused his public position and that is an abuse of power.

     Let’s see the minutes of the meeting…
102. Danny 102

     22 September 2008 at 9:29 pm

     Ghost,

     The information he sought was not in the public domain when he sought it. Why would he need to “seek” it if it was public info?

     If he had received it then it would have become public at the point of receipt, putting him in no better position than any other individual who wanted it.
103. Pat 103

     22 September 2008 at 9:31 pm

     Ghost – “passing on information”, “share trading ring”? Don’t start making things up. You were going well up until that point.
104. Janet 104

     22 September 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).
105. Robinsod 105

     22 September 2008 at 9:33 pm

     Danny – that’s the theory of it but there is a delay in getting that information out and by asking the questions Key puts himself at the front of the queue for the information. Other traders (y’know those who don’t have a seat in parliament) don’t have the chance to get in first…

     Remember a week is a long time in politics but an hour is a longer time in the market…
106. ghostwhowalks 106

     22 September 2008 at 9:34 pm

     Danny dont be a stupid dick–….”no evidence of an intention to personally gain”

     Buying any shares is ALLWAYS an ‘intention to personally gain’

     Thats what they are for, it doesnt quite go to plan but the intention is clear
107. Macro 107

     22 September 2008 at 9:35 pm

     “were being handled by a broker, what makes you imagine that any of this was ever front of mind in those days?”

     You still have to tell the broker to buy/sell.

     Get over it guys! He shouldn’t have been doing this – he’s been found out – he’s NOT holier than Winston.
108. Trader 108

     22 September 2008 at 9:37 pm

     Following on Danny’s astute point, he actually got NO inside information and influenced NOTHING. The story seems to be that if Key (or any other MP) invests in any NZ company, they’re suspect. If they don’t, however, they’d be reviled for not doing so on other grounds.
109. Pat 109

     22 September 2008 at 9:37 pm

     Macro – let’s be honest. Everyone is holier than Winston.
110. Danny 110

     22 September 2008 at 9:41 pm

     Robinsod,

     I accept that Key should have disclosed his interests, both before Parliamentary questions and at the start of the RA meeting. That much is beyond argument.

     However, it is a far cry from corruption. At best it was an oversight on his part, at worst he thought being privy to such a discussion was a perk of the job (I doubt he thought this). Each is less than manipulation for personal gain.
111. Robinsod 111

     22 September 2008 at 9:41 pm

     Hey Trader – I’ve already pointed out the problem with that argument. But what about rail america – what if duing the meeting he found out they were not interested in buying and so he comes home, pumps the shares a bit, and then sells his before people tumble? ALl speculation but when he’s meeting with these folk and we don;t know what’s going on it all a bit…

     murky…

     don’t y’ think?
112. Trader 112

     22 September 2008 at 9:42 pm

     Macro: To quote from a statement issued tonight “The shareholdings were managed on my behalf by my broker who had the authority to act on individual share parcels without referring back to the trust.”
113. Anita 113

     22 September 2008 at 9:43 pm

     My vague memory of the process is that if Key submitted a written parliamentary question he would get the response before it was made public. That is as an MP asking a written PQ he has better and earlier access to information than other New Zealanders.
114. Robinsod 114

     22 September 2008 at 9:46 pm

     at worst he thought being privy to such a discussion was a perk of the job

     Oh nohz – poor naive John! Get real Danny – Key was a hard-nosed trader who would know the value of inside information and would be well aware of the conflict of interest. The idea he just mistook it for a “perk” is absurd. Are you running an absurd argument Danny?
115. ghostwhowalks 115

     22 September 2008 at 9:48 pm

     Trader, like the TV quiz master who has to know the answers to the questions before hand, Key knew the answers to his questions some times days before they became public.

     SO he was seeking to profit ( shares are an investment class , Ferraris arent)
     He was seeking confidential information using the resources of the Parliament to do so.

     THus he was seeking to profit from his job as a Member of parliament
116. Macro 116

     22 September 2008 at 9:48 pm

     lol! However, I’m sorry to disagree Pat but we are all like Winston. And we should never set ourselves up as if were were anything other. We are likely to be found out, for one thing, and if we think we are different we deceive no one but ourselves.
117. Trader 117

     22 September 2008 at 9:48 pm

     Robinsbod: RA did make an offer. It was not compelling to the market and the share price fell.
118. Danny 118

     22 September 2008 at 9:50 pm

     “Danny dont be a stupid dick .’no evidence of an intention to personally gain'”

     Hi Ghost. There is no evidence of an intention to personally gain from the any alleged misuse of public “power”. There is no evidence that the questions he asked were personally motivated. Of course he intends to gain with his share trades, as do all MPs.
119. Robinsod 119

     22 September 2008 at 9:50 pm

     “The shareholdings were managed on my behalf by my broker who had the authority to act on individual share parcels without referring back to the trust.’

     Yeah – that’s right up there with “I was talking about Australian wages”

     He’s not much on personal responsibility is he? Not when it’s his…
120. Robinsod 120

     22 September 2008 at 9:52 pm

     Robinsbod: RA did make an offer. It was not compelling to the market and the share price fell.

     So do we know whether he knew what that offer would be? It’d make sense to sell if he did. And he did come back and sell…
121. Trader 121

     22 September 2008 at 9:53 pm

     This discussion would make a lot more sense if Key had been Minister, rather than spokesman for the Opposition in the portfolio. As Minister, he would expect to get quite a lot. As an Opposition spokesman, he’d be lucky to get more than a vague and oblique response from the Government and something even less from Rail America or TR. Clearly, he got nothing. Look at the returns on his investment.
122. Macro 122

     22 September 2008 at 9:56 pm

     “were being handled by a broker, what makes you imagine that any of this was ever front of mind in those days?”

     Yeah – that’s right up there with “I was talking about Australian wages’

     He’s not much on personal responsibility is he? Not when it’s his

     yeah I was about to say the same thing! AND even though the broker may have been handling the trust he is still able to direct the broker.
123. Trader 123

     22 September 2008 at 9:57 pm

     Sigh. Robinsod, most large scale investors use brokers who deal with the daily buys and sells. Broker performance is rarely monitored as closely as you seem to suspect. You’re probably a Kiwisaver guy. Do you know where your money is every day and do you move your portfolio around a lot? Your Kiwisaver agent is your broker. Do you know his/her name?
124. Danny 124

     22 September 2008 at 9:58 pm

     Robinsod,

     Read my post again. “The idea he just mistook it for a “perk’ is absurd.” I totally agree.

     Which leaves it as an error in judgement on his part.

     Your logic chain that he had some type of public power which he may have misused therefore it may corruption is tenuous, and the allegation falls with it. On the other hand, if Cullen had an undisclosed share holding in TR, then …

     Do you get my point?
125. RedLogix 125

     22 September 2008 at 9:59 pm

     Well I’ve just read all 280 pages of DBSCH_SCR_4211_6254.pdf… and in the end I find myself largely agreeing with Winston.

     It all seems to hinge on Members chose to define “pecuniary interest” and the Committee itself firmly acknowledges that in the period concerned there has been a total lack of any authorative advice available to members. In general the Registrar has been telling Members to “seek legal advice”, and the advice Peters got from Henry was that the monies concerned were not declarable.

     It is of course likely that Winston knew that Glenn had provided funding in a general way; but it is also clear that Henry and Peters had an arrangement that precluded Peters gaining specific knowledge of such a donation.

     Most interestingly the Committee also states:

     We have accepted advice that all distinct interests must be declared, regardless of whether they are channelled through a trust or third party. The fact that a third party is involved makes no difference to the member’s obligation to declare pecuniary interests.

     The approach should be “If in doubt, declare it’. Arrangements that allow members to avoid the knowledge of pecuniary interests are no longer sustainable.

     Time ALL the Trusts were opened up. National has nothing to hide behind any longer.
126. Pat 126

     22 September 2008 at 9:59 pm

     Meanwhile Cullen and the other Labour MP’s on the privilges committee have seen fit to vote on party lines, rather in support of the truth.

     Cullen does himself a dis-service by calling John Key a liar, and in the same day endorsing the liar Peters.

     Why won’t Labour take the higher moral ground and call them both liars? The NZ public can see through this inconsistency, and it hampers the Trust campaign.
127. ghostwhowalks 127

     22 September 2008 at 9:59 pm

     —-Heres the weasel words released by the Key or whoever is authorised to make up bullshit without reference to back to him

     National Party Leader John Key tonight pointed out it has been public for months that his family trust had been shareholders in Tranzrail until the shares were sold in June 2003.

     —-Not public he personally bought shares as well, is he still trying lie about this!!

     “The point here is that I confirmed my family trust was a shareholder in Tranzrail when the matter was first raised.

     —-Was that before or after he went on a fishing expedition for secret info

     “The number of shares held by the trust varied at different times.

     ——I was trying to make a wad of cash the easy way

     “The shareholdings were managed on my behalf by my broker who had the authority to act on individual share parcels without referring back to the trust.

     —-really !! So hes the fall guy for this Im just a dumbass investor

     “Early in June 2003 it became clear to me Tranzrail could be a major political issue and I instructed my broker to sell the shares, which were sold on 9 and 12 June 2003.

     —–Early in June !!
     —-Thats when I started to make political capital of this , previously I was trying to get secret info to make a pile of money

     capcha money burglar
128. Anita 128

     22 September 2008 at 9:59 pm

     Danny,

     An error in ethical judgement, followed by a mistruth.

     Yes?
129. Matthew Pilott 129

     22 September 2008 at 10:01 pm

     So he’s asking for detailed confidential information and buying up, and pepole can claim, for example:

     “There is no evidence of an intention to personally gain from the any alleged misuse of public “power’. There is no evidence that the questions he asked were personally motivated.”

     Nothing even vaguely suspicious with asking for confidential information about the company in which you have a large number of undisclosed shares?

     Not at all?

     Well that’s fine, glad we’re sorted. That nice Mr Key. He’d never do anything wrong.

     P.S righties – if you’re going for the misdirection, wait until you have your official talking points. The desperate attempts above actually make it look worse – if you’d just all waited until tomorrow to be told what to say, then I think a concerted effort would actually be more effective.
130. Macro 130

     22 September 2008 at 10:03 pm

     Trader

     “Broker performance is rarely monitored as closely as you seem to suspect.”
     I suppose you know all about SIV’s as well!

     The simple fact is J Key has consistently been economical with the truth. This is just another in a series of lapsed memories. (a rather serious one at that!) Maybe he isn’t up to running the country.
131. Trader 131

     22 September 2008 at 10:06 pm

     Key’s holdings were hardly a large share of the company’s shareholdings. And the prospective gains from such a small shareholding would never have amounted to a “wad of cash” in any imagination but that of someone who hopes for the Lotto to come in.
132. RedLogix 132

     22 September 2008 at 10:06 pm

     Pat,

     Read the report… fully and with an open mind.

     And then try and explain to me exactly how National’s use of the Waitemata and Ruahine Trusts differs in any ethical way from the arrangements Peters and Henry were using.

     If you want to argue that purpose the National Party Trusts was to protect the identity of big donors and shield Party leaders from allegations of being “bought”…. then you have no choice but to accept the same reasoning from Winston Peters.
133. Danny 133

     22 September 2008 at 10:07 pm

     Anita: “An error in ethical judgement, followed by a mistruth.”

     Ha! Possibly, I suppose. 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. It was far from his life savings.
134. Macro 134

     22 September 2008 at 10:11 pm

     the PC states inter alia

     “We have accepted advice that all distinct interests must be declared, regardless of whether they are channelled through a trust or third party. The fact that a third party is involved makes no difference to the member’s obligation to declare pecuniary interests.

     The approach should be “If in doubt, declare it’. Arrangements that allow members to avoid the knowledge of pecuniary interests are no longer sustainable.”

     You were saying Trader??
     OH!! it doesn’t apply in this case! because J K HAD SO MUCH MONEY!!
135. Anita 135

     22 September 2008 at 10:11 pm

     Danny,

     Which is why I asked, somewhere up there ^^^, why did he lie/conceal-the-truth?

     It was a small holding (for Key) with which he did incomprehensible-share-thing and baffling-but-ok-sounding parliament-thing. Why not fess up to the whole holding, the true dates, and move on?
136. Danny 136

     22 September 2008 at 10:13 pm

     Matthew,

     There can be more than one interpretation of the facts as stated. And in my view, neither interpretation bodes well for Key, however, I object to any accusations of corruption when the more plausible explanation points merely to an oversight on his part over a small shareholding.
137. Felix 137

     22 September 2008 at 10:13 pm

     Danny and Trader,

     Are you trying to say that Key bought and sold shares with some intention other than to make money?
138. RedLogix 138

     22 September 2008 at 10:14 pm

     Danny,

     I’m sorry but the “it was only a small amount” defense will not do.

     One of the most basic obligations of public life is to rigorously declare all possible conflicts of interest, no matter how small or indirect, and to recuse yourself from any role relating to them. There are no exceptions to this essential standard at all levels.

     More than few politicians have at one time or another fallen foul of this one; but few have wanted to be our PM.
139. Quoth the Raven 139

     22 September 2008 at 10:15 pm

     Danny – I’m sure you’d give winston such quarter.
140. Macro 140

     22 September 2008 at 10:18 pm

     Anita

     why did he lie/conceal-the-truth?

     I don’t think even J K could answer that. I don’t think he is that politically savvy.
141. Danny 141

     22 September 2008 at 10:21 pm

     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.
142. Trader 142

     22 September 2008 at 10:21 pm

     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.
143. Anita 143

     22 September 2008 at 10:23 pm

     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.
144. Felix 144

     22 September 2008 at 10:30 pm

     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.
145. Pascal's bookie 145

     22 September 2008 at 10:30 pm

     Who knows why he did it, but look at the dates:

     A)* April 14, 2003 – Mr Key seeks dates and details of government meetings with Tranz Rail in written parliamentary questions;

     B)* April 23, 2003 – Mr Key seeks copies of minutes from Government meetings with Tranz Rail from Dr Cullen, but is declined on commercial secrecy grounds;

     C)* May 7, 2003 – Mr Key purchases 50,000 more Tranz Rail shares in his own name for $22,500;

     D)* May 20, 2003 – in his role as National’s associate transport spokesman Mr Key meets Rail America to discuss its views on Tranz Rail;

     E)* June 10, 2003 – Mr Key sells the 50,000 Tranz Rail shares he purchased in May for $51,000;

     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.
146. Danny 146

     22 September 2008 at 10:30 pm

     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.
147. Anita 147

     22 September 2008 at 10:30 pm

     Danny,

     The questions were put to him on the spot (as I understand it).

     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.
148. Trader 148

     22 September 2008 at 10:31 pm

     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.
149. Macro 149

     22 September 2008 at 10:31 pm

     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
150. RedLogix 150

     22 September 2008 at 10:32 pm

     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.
151. Danny 151

     22 September 2008 at 10:34 pm

     Anita,

     That’s a factual matter. If you are correct then yes, your question is more relevant and he best explain.
152. randal 152

     22 September 2008 at 10:35 pm

     keep a clean nose, watch the plainclothes, you dont needa weatehrman to tell which way trhe wind blows subterranean homesick blues
153. RedLogix 153

     22 September 2008 at 10:38 pm

     randal wins (again).

     (I’m still chuckling over the “deleted cranimum” line mate. All is forgiven.)
154. Felix 154

     22 September 2008 at 10:39 pm

     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?
155. Danny 155

     22 September 2008 at 10:40 pm

     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.
156. Macro 156

     22 September 2008 at 10:40 pm

     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?)
157. Macro 157

     22 September 2008 at 10:45 pm

     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?
158. randal 158

     22 September 2008 at 10:46 pm

     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.
159. Danny 159

     22 September 2008 at 10:48 pm

     Macro, do you mean the question or the trade, or both (when you allege abuse of power)?
160. Pascal's bookie 160

     22 September 2008 at 10:49 pm

     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.
161. Pascal's bookie 161

     22 September 2008 at 10:53 pm

     … 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.
162. Trader 162

     22 September 2008 at 10:59 pm

     If only any Government policy was worth its weight in whale vomit. And so, goodnight. Have fun trying to shape the story.
163. Bill 163

     22 September 2008 at 11:02 pm

     “… 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.
164. Bill English 164

     22 September 2008 at 11:18 pm

     [lprent: deleted. I do not approve of attempts to hijack identities. It isn’t funny. ]
165. Pat 165

     22 September 2008 at 11:21 pm

     “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.
166. mickysavage 166

     22 September 2008 at 11:29 pm

     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?
167. Pat 167

     22 September 2008 at 11:48 pm

     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.
168. appleboy 168

     22 September 2008 at 11:51 pm

     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…
169. Killinginthenameof 169

     23 September 2008 at 12:17 am

     “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.
170. Draco T Bastard 170

     23 September 2008 at 12:24 am

     Redlogix

     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.

     It’s not failing to recognise it – it’s failing to accept that one of their own got caught out doing it.
171. travellerev 171

     23 September 2008 at 5:30 am

     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?
172. Andrew 172

     23 September 2008 at 7:20 am

     travellerev – what, you mean like shares in Cullens super fund?!?
173. Go The Right 173

     23 September 2008 at 7:37 am

     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.
174. Robinsod 174

     23 September 2008 at 7:40 am

     GtR – he remembered pretty bloody fast when he was asked by Fran…
175. Anita 175

     23 September 2008 at 8:16 am

     GtR,

     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.

     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.
176. Pascal's bookie 176

     23 September 2008 at 8:33 am

     Anita, the speed and clarity with which he answered and then revised his answer show that he was on top of most of the detail.

     He just didn’t know how much others knew.
177. travellerev 177

     23 September 2008 at 8:41 am

     Johnny boy says he’s the victim of a smear campaign. LOL.
     Yeah, I guess that having your lies exposed is smearing. Not.
178. coge 178

     23 September 2008 at 8:56 am

     Pascal, how about some facts instead of half baked assumptions.

     I’ll give you some facts about bank unit trusts. They are crap instruments. The bank skims off various fees, they are too diversified & taking into account inflation they are utterly ineffectual at making profit (apart for the bank) Banks keep their customers in the dark about values & specifics of these funds, for good reasons.

     Who would be foolish enough to have a unit trust as a main investment? Surely not your finance minister who is in charge of our nations finances? Frankly it beggars belief that he declared one at the BNZ. I have to wonder at the doctor’s financial acumen, does he believe in fairies? Or perhaps a shiny suited banker pulled one over him!

     Perhaps it would be more sensible for Cullen to declare which stocks his unit trust were invested in. That’s if the bank would make that information available, which they wouldn’t. There is a chance Cullen himself had some Tranzrail at some point along the way, but had no idea.
179. Anita 179

     23 September 2008 at 8:58 am

     Depending on one’s point of view that National Party appears to have two main problems.

     1) National MPs enthusiastic truthfulness when talking about National’s intentions. This is only a problem because of National’s game plan of hiding their intentions behind smiley empty words.

     2) Key’s lack of truthfulness when asked questions for which he does not have a scripted answer. This is a problem because he keeps getting caught.

     It’s not hard to see why Labour has decided to campaign on trust.

     Sad tho, I would like NZ to have a genuine right wing party which was open about their intentions so we could actually have those discussions.
180. Phil 180

     23 September 2008 at 9:02 am

     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?
     

     Sure, because Boeing only make millitary hardware. And Exxon couldn’t possibly make a profit from emerging economies increased desire for energy.

     Sometimes your speculation/theories are intriguing, sometimes they just embarass you. Pick which one I think this is…
181. Pascal's bookie 181

     23 September 2008 at 9:07 am

     Coge. Ummm ok. What’s that supposed to be in reply to, specifically?
182. travellerev 182

     23 September 2008 at 9:51 am

     Phil,

     As I said it is pure speculation but the fact is that Haliburton is the biggest war profiteer, the fact is Exxon has made massive profits as a result of the prise rise that followed the wars and the fact is Raetheon is involved in spyware and other intrusive technology. You only point out that the military industrial complex is absolutely everywhere.

     These companies have a huge interest in keeping the wars going and I was revering to John Key’s were missing in action remark.

     Again what’s with the speculation/theories? Science has a funny bias and the links I give to quotes of John Key show him to be on Wall street when Alan Greenspan engineered the bubbles and the derivative bubble that is now deflating as the head of the debt department developing racy new derivative products.

     Nothing theoretical about this. Just facts. Theories and Hypothesis have nothing to do with it but perhaps you don’t like the facts and it’s easier for you to condemn them to the Conspiracy bin.

     Sorry mate, that says more about you than about me.

     If you want to know more about the Money Masters and the history of our modern banking system than this is a goody to watch and if you want to know more about how money is created than this is a nice one.

     Being intrigued by the way was the first step for me too. What a bunch of nutters I said to my husband after my first 911 google.
     Took me a year of research and a frighting paradigm shift to admit that they were right. Or that I had gone as nutty as they. LOL.
183. travellerev 183

     23 September 2008 at 9:56 am

     Phil,

     This is a good lecture on the nature of the Federal Reserve of New York. The Federal Reserve is a privately owned banking cartel.
184. Go The Right 184

     23 September 2008 at 10:22 am

     I love The Standard trying to claim the Moral high ground for this very corrupt Labour Government.

     [lprent: You are talking about a program running on a machine. Programs don’t have morals or opinions. Address this to a person that can be expected to understand these things. I treat attempts to talk to the site as referring to me or an attack on the site. I take things quite personally especially about things I haven’t done. Do it again and I’ll terminate your access. Read the Policy about attacks on the site.]

     Key had 100000 shares not 50000 who cares he sold them and made a $48000 loss I would want to forget about them to.

     NO OTHER MP HAS DECLARED THEIR EXACT NUMBER OF SHARES IN THEIR DECLARATIONS SO NO STORY.

     When you have 50 million bucks it probably a little hard to know exactly how many shares you have in what companies.He is a rich prick and good on him for being successful

     The envy Politics that Labour use are what will pull our Nation down to our lowest level.
     We are rapidly becoming the unachievers of the Pacific with so much potential next stop Banana Republic.

     Where are the positive Economic policy’s from Labour to get people to invest in New Zealand. You got it there aren’t any.

     Labour focus on negative politics all they are concerned about is fulfilling their Social Engineering experiment at what cost we all say.

     They are the most non aspirational Government we have ever had.

     What is of more concern to all of us is the Fact that Labour are using Government paid researches to try and dredge up dirt on John Key then get their State owned TV Station to ask carefully crafted questions.

     No doubt given to them by Labours strategy team such as ‘ Can New Zealand trust you Mr Key’
185. RedLogix 185

     23 September 2008 at 10:25 am

     Key had 100000 shares not 50000 who cares he sold them and made a $48000 loss I would want to forget about them to.

     Whether Key made a loss or a profit has NOTHING to do with:

     1. The fact of the conflict of interest.

     2. The fact that he failed to declare it.

     3. The fact that he has lied about it.
186. Anita 186

     23 September 2008 at 10:59 am

     Go The Right,

     When you have 50 million bucks it probably a little hard to know exactly how many shares you have in what companies.

     Key’s shareholding was raised in Parliament, he responded a little while later, he response was challenged, he provided a clarification on his response and so on, for over a week only a few months ago.

     There is no way it is reasonable to argue that he just didn’t know and didn’t bother to find out.

     His answers at the time, despite saying he’d checked, were misleading (at best).

     Whether his behaviour around shares and PQs and declarations of interested and so on was acceptable (wanna argue that it was?), giving misleading (at best) answers isn’t acceptable.

     There are three issues; whether his behaviour was within the rules, whether his behaviour was ethical, whether he mislead the public and parliament.

     Are you claiming he’s clear on all three counts?
187. Go The Right 187

     23 September 2008 at 11:09 am

     Anita

     I believe he made an honest Mistake the shares have never been brought in his name as Michael Cullen is claiming that is factually incorrect.

     Key has just been on One ZB talking about it he concedes he should have sold the shares earlier.

     I believe he did very well in the interview. Good to know he donates most of his Salary to charities I wonfder how much Michael and Helen give away.

     The shares have only ever been brought by the trust.

     I thought it was refreshing to hear a leader in this Country saying I made a mistake we don’t hear that from Labour or Helen very often even when they have made some beauties.

     I believe NZS warm to that.

     At the end of the day this Election can be fought on Policy debate or personal attacks.

     [Deleted]

     That may be a good one for the right to let lose personally I don’t like that style of Politics.

     [lprent: If you want to like doing defamation about people outside of the political sphere, then I’d suggest you do it elsewhere. The Wishart style of ‘journalism’ of attacking family members with smears belongs in the sewer and doesn’t belong here.

     While you figure out the policy here, I’m strapping your training wheels on – you can go into moderation so I can check what you say before it becomes visible. I suggest you read the Policy. ]

Links to post

1. Beehive Buzz - Political News and Comment » Blog Archive » 50,000 or 100,000?: posted on 22 September 2008 at 9:57 pm
2. The Standard 2.01: The Standard Week: 19-26 September: posted on 27 September 2008 at 5:00 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS