How much did Key pay for his seat?

Written By: - Date published: 8:33 am, June 4th, 2008 - 85 comments
Categories: election funding, john key, rumour, slippery - Tags: ,

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.]

85 comments on “How much did Key pay for his seat? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. vto 1
    4 June 2008 at 8:37 am

    Sometimes your stories are a bit pathetic Mr Pierson. Sometimes good, but this one is clearly from the off-smelling section.

  2. Monty 2
    4 June 2008 at 8:47 am

    Your leftards are so sad. Have you not worked out that KDS is simply not going to win you an election. The 55% od the people in NZ who are now supporting John Key are doing so on his merits as Prime Minister in waiting. Helen has already tried the line “herump cackle I don’t have $50 million to get my party elected” and was rightly chastised for such a comment.

    But I suppose when your beloved but corrupt party is 26% points behind in the polls you may as well try anything for a story – no matter if there is no proof or substance. Just “someone I came across”. Get a life.

  3. mike 3
    4 June 2008 at 8:49 am

    Another sad attempt at a smear SP.
    But bad polls can bring the Wishart out in anyone I guess.

  4. barnsleybill 4
    4 June 2008 at 8:50 am

    Any actual evidence of this Steve, or are you just interviewing your keyboard again?

  5. rjs131 5
    4 June 2008 at 8:52 am

    Arent you ignoring the role (and i realise it is minor) that the people of Helensville had in voting him in? How big is his majority? Or are you also suggesting he will be getting his just deserves this year when he is defeated in a Darien Fenton landslide….

  6. James Kearney 6
    4 June 2008 at 8:59 am

    The righties don’t like it. Sorry fellas but I’ve heard similar stories around the traps myself. Anyone know if there’s any substance to them?

  7. James Kearney 7
    4 June 2008 at 9:03 am

    rjs- Tory MP wins solid blue seat? Give the man a bloody medal!

  8. rjs131 8
    4 June 2008 at 9:16 am

    yes, but didnt he substantially increase his majority?

  9. Billy 9
    4 June 2008 at 9:16 am

    Sorry fellas but I’ve heard similar stories

    You should hear the stories I hear about Helen Clarke. I have no evidence for them whatsoever. Shall I nonetheless repeat them? Nah, that wouldn’t be right.

  10. hmm 10
    4 June 2008 at 9:17 am

    put up evidence or don’t make posts like this.

    This is exactly the type of irresponsible writing that you guys so often criticise when the mainstream media does it – is it not hypocritical for you yourself to then follow suit with these gutter posts based on “rumour”?

  11. Dancer 11
    4 June 2008 at 9:19 am

    Actually I think Key arrived permanently in NZ in 2002 just ahead of the Nats selection processs.

  12. Pascal's bookie 12
    4 June 2008 at 9:34 am

    I’ll just note that not one righty has said anything even approaching:

    “No way, couldn’t happen. The National party doesn’t operate like that.” (No Brash, No Cash. cough)

    Nor have any of them seconded the call for National’s funding to be made transparent in order to refute this rumour.

    Funny that.

  13. higherstandard 13
    4 June 2008 at 9:34 am

    Clinton

    1. Proof ?
    2. Who really cares if Key donated money to National ?

  14. Billy 14
    4 June 2008 at 9:40 am

    Pascal’s Bookie, you are running what we around here call a “pig fcuking argument”.

  15. Robinsod 15
    4 June 2008 at 9:41 am

    Funny – I heard the same rumour with the same dollar amount attached to it.

  16. Scribe 16
    4 June 2008 at 9:46 am

    SP,

    This is a disgraceful post — UNLESS you can provide some supporting evidence for your allegations, which are incredibly serious.

    This is on a par with some of the whispers about Helen Clark and/or Peter Davis which you would have kittens over if, for example, Kiwiblog posted about them.

    Your blog, free to do what you like, but this is as bad, if not worse, than the things you criticise others for.

  17. Pascal's bookie 17
    4 June 2008 at 9:50 am

    Yeah, sort of Billy.

    Except that in this instance, the ‘No brash, No cash deal’, is a polaroid of animal related bedroom activity, and from the secret trusts wafts a porcine smell.

    The smell could be from a wholesome reanactment of a children’s tale put on for the benefit of starving children. Who knows? The National Party could clear that up at any time.

  18. T-rex 18
    4 June 2008 at 9:55 am

    Is there any reason National SHOULD make their funding transparent when other parties aren’t required to?

    If Key has bought himself the party leadership then that does raise some serious questions about Nationals internal candidate selection process… but frankly I’d say that’s an internal National party issue (if it exists). Key still has to be elected through democratic process – if he’s bought anything it’s leadership of the opposition.

    If he’s a good candidate, then it doesn’t matter if he donated to the party, and if he’s a bad candidate then it shouldn’t help him.

    I think it’s a bit unreasonable to make accusations like this on limited evidence and demand that a party make a disclosure it’s not legally obiligated to make to refute them.

  19. Archon 19
    4 June 2008 at 9:58 am

    Ah, the old Porcine Copulator post. Classy.

    And just after a post regarding the lowering of journalistic quality and “journos who will take the spin you give them and run it uncritically”. Double classy.

    The Standard. ‘Ethically diverse’ since ages ago.

  20. Steve Pierson 20
    4 June 2008 at 9:59 am

    Cheers Dancer, you’re right. I got mixed up.

    Obviously, I can’t have proof, that’s the whole point of National having secret trusts, so the public can’t have proof of the donations people like Key and Peter Shirtcliffe give the party.

    The difference between this and the odious stories regarding Peter Davis or Clark is that this story is politically relevent.

    All National has to do is reveal the trusts’ accounts.

  21. mike 21
    4 June 2008 at 9:59 am

    A friend of a friend of mine told me that Helen Clarke (and a bunch of unnamed MP’s) donated tens of thousands of dollars to the labour Party coffers to pay back money they rorted from the taxpayer.

    Man if that story ever got out it would be end of her..

  22. Robinsod 22
    4 June 2008 at 10:02 am

    Scribe – I know you have pretensions to being a journalist but the rumours you are talking about regard private lives and have no real bearing on the political process. I didn’t see you complaining about media commentators suggesting Owen Glen may have been behind NZ First donations or the suggestions he brokered a secret “cash for honours” deal. Bill English was happy to put out a media release pushing this story:

    http://www.billenglish.co.nz/index.php?/archives/263-Clark-must-front-over-Glenn-donations.html

    I’m glad to see you hold a bunch of bloggers to a higher level of accountability than you do the deputy leader of the opposition.

    Or will you be writing to Bill to chastise him?

  23. Robinsod 23
    4 June 2008 at 10:08 am

    Hey Mike you tard – you don’t need a friend to tell you that because it’s on the public record. You know “the public record” – that thing the Nats are too scared to list their backers or their policies on.

  24. Steve Pierson 24
    4 June 2008 at 10:10 am

    mike. Clark and other MPs donated openly to Labour last year – that’s public information here

    It’s also public information that the Green MPs tithe to the party.

    What’s not public information is how much Key has given to National, nor indeed who gave the rest of the $4 million in large, secret donations Naitonal recieved over the last 10 years.

    – also, her name’s Clark, not Clarke. It’s not like she’s new on the scene.

  25. T-rex 25
    4 June 2008 at 10:15 am

    Was anyone watching channel 3 this morning? Key was supposed to be on there for an interview. This was the conversation… I almost never watch it so I don’t know the peoples names, for now they’re bill and sue.

    paraphrased…

    Bill: And unfortunately John Key still hasn’t made it in.
    Sue: I wonder where he’s got to.
    Bill: I’m not sure, maybe he got lost.
    Sue: He’s probably trying to find some policy.

    heheheh

    —

    Had an interesting insight into the public mind this morning too – or at least a microcosm of it. A few weeks ago my flatmate was saying “surely National will get in this time… they have to… otherwise it’ll almost be time to move to aussie”.

    This morning she said “Isn’t it scary that he (Key) might end up being the leader of our country and we don’t have any idea what he stands for or what he’s going to do. I really hope he doesn’t get in”.

    Ahhhh, winds of change, how sweet your scent…

  26. mike 26
    4 June 2008 at 10:26 am

    T-rex:”Key was supposed to be on there for an interview.”
    He was on TV1 talking about Labours poor environmental record.

    SP: I realise it public knowledge I was sarcastically pointing out that other partys also receive “donations” from their members

    RS: Nice blog you have. Very grown-up. Now I know why you are without a job.

  27. Robinsod 27
    4 June 2008 at 10:29 am

    Thanks Mike – the funny part is I do have a job (well, a business) and I make a lot of money. In fact I probably make more money than you. I guess that means we live in a meritocracy, eh?

  28. illuminatedtiger 28
    4 June 2008 at 10:35 am

    I would love to see Key pressed on this one during a debate. He would melt on set! Wonderful 🙂 !

  29. Steve Pierson 29
    4 June 2008 at 10:38 am

    T-rex, did he show up late? because his interview is on the tv3 site.

  30. Scribe 30
    4 June 2008 at 10:41 am

    SP and Robinsod,

    Some of the rumours that were rife last year about Dr Davis related to things much more serious than just his private life, so I don’t think you can use that smokescreen.

    And re the Owen Glenn situation, I don’t think I was on The Standard at that stage. What we know as fact is that Glenn has been a large donor to Labour and he was given a gong under a Labour government. This post is based on a rumour.

    Bill English has every right to ask the PM to clarify a series of conflicting statements and reports. Just as Robinsod has every right to say I have “pretensions” of being a journalist and just as SP can run his mouth about Key’s path to the National Party, though the last one is borderline libelous.

  31. Scribe 31
    4 June 2008 at 10:48 am

    “illuminated”tiger,

    I would love to see Key pressed on this one during a debate. He would melt on set!

    How would the question go? Something like this maybe: “John, we read a rumour on a blog whose sole purpose is to bash you and your party that you paid for your seat, even though there is no evidence whatsoever. How do you respond?”

    If a right-leaning blog posted something alleging that Helen Clark is a lesbian, should she be asked that question during a debate as well?

  32. Bryan Spondre 32
    4 June 2008 at 10:51 am

    Entertaining thread: still waiting for all the Key/National FUD to start showing up in the polls. So far Nationals strategy of keeping quiet on policy appears to be working.

    Tomorrows Monetary Policy Statement will be interesting. I wonder what Dr Bollard will have to say about the consequences of the budget ?

  33. T-rex 33
    4 June 2008 at 10:53 am

    Mike – I know. I saw him. What was the first thing he said again?
    “Governments record on the environment which has been shocking in the last 9 years, mumble massive deforestation, wrong signals to forestry, land usage change, 3/4 electricity generation from thermal”. This is a faily misleading perspective. The forestry issue resulted from the land use change rules, which were a necessary part of the climate change legislation.The electricity generation issue has been conclusively addressed with the recent policy on renewables (which, incidentally, national doesn’t like).
    Interestingly, labours environmental record was under simultaneous review on channel 3… some guy they had on…

    He said that he thought NZ had the potential to become a beacon for climate change globally.
    “I think you’ve already taken quite a progressive approach over the last few years”
    “NZ has already begun to work on this”
    “We look to NZ as one of the encouraging examples”
    [will biodiver”If more countries acted like NZ we would indeed, because you have a very proud record actually NZ of conservation and protected areas mangagement, almost 1/3rd of the country is under protected areas management and you have one of the highest percentage of marine protected areas…”

    To be fair though, he never worked as a currency trader… he was just the UN Climate Change Director. Achim Steiner… probably some underqualified hack. Oops, no, my bad, looks like he’s actually a world renowned expert in the field.

    So on one hand, we have the smiling assassin saying Labours environmental record is terrible, and on the other hand we have the UN Climate Change Director and international environmental management expert saying the UN looks to NZ as an encouraging example and wishes more places were like us.

    Hmmm…. who to believe….

  34. T-rex 34
    4 June 2008 at 10:55 am

    SP – whether he was actually late or not I’m not sure, but they were definitely giving him grief about it. Check the stuff that screened shortly before the interview maybe? They were interviewing some woman who’s name I forget – I think she was the first one who pulled out the “looking for some policy” line.

  35. Steve Pierson 35
    4 June 2008 at 10:57 am

    Bryan. There will be no movement of the OCR, just as no-one was expecting a move so early. Remember, these tax cuts are $1.5 billion in the first year, exactly the size that the RB had assumed tax cuts would be.

    And, anyway, weren’t you one of the ones complainng the tax cuts weren’t big enough?

    (personally, I would move it down but I’m not a monetarist)

  36. Robinsod 36
    4 June 2008 at 11:01 am

    though the last one is borderline libelous

    No it’s not. It’s clearly marked as rumour and contains nothing more than honest opinion. You are obviously not a journalist as you would have flunked media law. You should also know that if a defamation suit was brought against Steve the onus would be on Key to disprove the allegations and that would mean opening the trust’s accounts in a court of law. I would welcome this rumour being disproved because it is my sincere hope that this sort of chicanery could not occur in New Zealand politics.

  37. Bryan Spondre 37
    4 June 2008 at 11:04 am

    Steve: as a homeowner I would love to see it drop, driving inflation and eroding the real size of my home loan.

  38. T-rex 38
    4 June 2008 at 11:11 am

    Bryan – no doubt you would… good luck with that!

    On an unrelated topic – 3 Cheers for Russel Norman for getting into parliament. Much rationality may he inject.

    Likewise, 3 cheers for Tanczos and Delahunty for making it possible. 2 cheers for Norman for deciding to stop being a pain in the ass about it.

  40. T-rex 40
    4 June 2008 at 11:14 am

    Ha! That’s the one. Mark… Russel… they both sound the same.

  41. Hoolian 41
    4 June 2008 at 11:16 am

    Pierson, you’re a gossip (not to mention a liar and propagandist). You’re as bad as those who go on about Clark’s sexuality.

    However, this will cause quite a concern to your ‘holier than thou’ image – largely due to you forever claiming to be above the “kiwiblog right” and yet here you are, rolling in the same muck.

    Funny how mud sticks, irrespective of party ideology.

  42. Nedyah Hsan 42
    4 June 2008 at 11:16 am

    How much did Key pay? The real answer lies in the destruction of NZ come twenty eleven if National ever got in. What price fame eh?

    This is remniscient of other rumours I’ve heard in that Key wins for National, steps aside quoting “family”, Prime Minister English steps up…

    Now thats a scary thought.

  43. Robinsod 43
    4 June 2008 at 11:26 am

    However, this will cause quite a concern to your ‘holier than thou’ image – largely due to you forever claiming to be above the “kiwiblog right’ and yet here you are, rolling in the same muck.

    Jeez Hoolian coming from someone who writes inane bullsh*t such as: Furthermore, Clark looked truly ghoulish in the House, with almost a touch of vampirism. you’ve got a cheek.

    You seem to have missed the fact that this post has not said anything about Key’s personal life and has only commented on a political rumour. As a fully fledged member of the Kiwiblog right I realise you have some issue recognising the distinction and for that you have my sympathies.

  44. Lew 44
    4 June 2008 at 11:44 am

    This is speculative wonkery, but at least it’s clearly marked as such. Last I checked Wishart et al. were considered reliable investigative sources on the side of the fence from which all this howling emerges.

    L

  45. erikter 45
    4 June 2008 at 11:51 am

    Similar question could be asked: how much money did Russell Norman pay for his new seat?

  46. T-rex 46
    4 June 2008 at 11:55 am

    ARGH! SUCH a retard.

  47. Billy 47
    4 June 2008 at 11:56 am

    Hey, ‘sod, as the resident expert, care to explain why this is not a pig fcuker argument?

    [lprent: You and ‘sod need to find another metaphor. I’m getting a bit sick of the bestality in-jokes. Eventually it always winds up in a mini-flame]

  48. gobsmacked 48
    4 June 2008 at 11:57 am

    John Key donates money to the National Party. But he has never reported this fact, or how much, in the annual accounts.

    At the height of the Owen Glen story, Key was asked about this, and for the first time …

    ‘Key disclosed that he had donated “several thousand” dollars a year to National for the past six years but never more than $10,000 in any one year — the maximum an individual can give before the donation has to be declared.’ (Stuff.co.nz, Feb 21).

    So he finally went public, because he was pressed. He should be pressed some more. Simple questions: How much? When?

    I do not actually believe he simply “bought” his seat. But I prefer to deal with known facts, and they are:

    1) John Key has consistently donated large sums to the National Party
    2) He has consistently hidden those donations (why?)
    3) His party is extensively funded by hidden donations

    There is a very clear public interest in transparency (not conspiracy). John Key should not hide his large donations behind secret Trusts, but should disclose them openly to the NZ public. Then we can make up our own minds.

  49. Scribe 49
    4 June 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Robinsod,

    Actually an award-winning journalist; thanks for asking.

    The only notion that this is rumour is that it has been tagged into that category. Nothing in the post headline or the post itself suggest it’s a rumour. “Allegedly” or “apparently” or other words usually used to show it’s just a rumour are absent.

    Steve says: “someone … told me THE story of how Key became involved in National”. (emphasis mine)

  50. T-rex 50
    4 June 2008 at 12:06 pm

    I fail to see why Key should be obliged to disclose the details of his donations anymore than Clark should be obliged to disclose the details of her voting.

    Anonymity is an important part of effective democracy I feel. The EFA was passed to try to prevent it from distorting fair democratic process. Unless Key’s breaking the law, I think he should be free to remain anonymous.

  51. gobsmacked 51
    4 June 2008 at 12:10 pm

    “Unless Key’s breaking the law, I think he should be free to remain anonymous.”

    Er, he wants to make the laws. That’s the whole point. Where does Key stand on the EFA again?

  52. Felix 52
    4 June 2008 at 12:10 pm

    I find it quite amusing that any time questions are raised about shady right-wing activity (be they of a pig-loving nature or not) the first response from certain people is

    “but… but… Helen Clark’s a lesbian!”

    It’s also quite handy though as I can make mental notes to never take anything these people say seriously again.

  53. Robinsod 53
    4 June 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Hey, ‘sod, as the resident expert, care to explain why this is not a pig fcuker argument?

    Billy – it clearly is such an argument. What’s your point? And have you read any Celine yet?

  54. T-rex 54
    4 June 2008 at 12:13 pm

    He might want to make new ones, but he’s still bound by the existing oens. If there’s reason to suspect he’s breaking them, the police should investigate. In my opinion, you’d have no right to even know such an investigation was taking place until charges were laid.

  55. Billy 55
    4 June 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Good-oh.

    No, but I bought Journey. Have to finish the dreary Ian McEwen first.

  56. Scribe 56
    4 June 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Felix,

    There’s as much evidence that the PM is a lesbian as there is evidence that Key bought his seat, i.e. ZERO. I think that’s where the comparisons are coming from (certainly it’s why I brought it up).

    I can’t say for sure whether either is true, but there’s no evidence to say they are.

  57. gobsmacked 57
    4 June 2008 at 12:23 pm

    T-rex, you seem to be setting the bar very low for those we entrust with power.

    It would be legal for John Key (or anybody else) to channel many millions of dollars to a party through secret accounts, while using that party as a vehicle to gain power. I am not suggesting that has actually happened in Key’s case, but if it did, would “hey, it’s legal, mind your own business” be all the public need to know?

    Don’t you want to hold the powerful to account? What weapons do we have, except knowledge of the truth?

  58. Lew 58
    4 June 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Scribe: It’s marked as speculation and rumour by the fact that the source cited is `someone’ that SP ran across. Could be someone at the pub, could be a taxi driver, could have been anyone but an authoritative source.

    L

  59. Steve Pierson 59
    4 June 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Hey, maybe Whaleoil can fill us in on some of this.

    After all, Whaleoil’s Dad is the John Slater in the story, former National Party President.

    So, Whale, did John ever tell you the story of meeting Key’s sister?

    Also, is he proud of you for making pictures putting the head a teenage boy on gay porn? I see that’s got you in trouble with your advertiser. http://newzblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/funny-karma-ii/

  60. gobsmacked 60
    4 June 2008 at 12:40 pm

    Colin Espiner had a good piece on National and its secretive donors a while back:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/02/22/time-to-tell-us-about-your-donors-national/

    Note the documented (NOT rumour/gossip etc) role played by John Key.

  61. hmm 61
    4 June 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Robinsod said:

    “You should also know that if a defamation suit was brought against Steve the onus would be on Key to disprove the allegations and that would mean opening the trust’s accounts in a court of law. I would welcome this rumour being disproved because it is my sincere hope that this sort of chicanery could not occur in New Zealand politics.”

    You may want to check your defamation texts yourself Robinsod. All Key would have to prove is that this statement on this website lessened his reputation in the eyes of right thinking people. If he could show on the balance of probabilities that then it’s prima facie defamation.

    Mr Pierson, if he invoked the truth defence, would have to prove himself on the balance of probabilites that it was the truth. Good luck.

    If he used honest opinion then he’d atleast need to point to some factual grounding to this story. The fact that Key is the MP for Helensville, is rich and that the National Party have a number of anonymous donors would not be a sufficient factual grounding to make this type of leap to more gutter journalism from the Standard defensible by honest opinion.

    Also labelling something “rumour” doesn’t help – otherwise everyone who wanted to defame someone would just say “this is a rumour” before then saying that the facts suggest that someone did ‘x’ bad thing.

  62. Scribe 62
    4 June 2008 at 1:10 pm

    hmm,

    Well said.

    But what does prima facie mean again? Oh, I remember now. If we like you, it’s not in the public interest to prosecute.

    Captcha: satisfying st (I bet house prices are crazy there)

  63. Robinsod 63
    4 June 2008 at 1:22 pm

    All Key would have to prove is that this statement on this website lessened his reputation in the eyes of right thinking people

    I like the way you preface that with “All” as if it is simple a case of saying “this hurts my reputation… wah” The truth is that’s a pretty hard bar to get across. Now if Steve had said “Key is a child molester” it would be a lot more simple but I don’t think it would wash with this given Key is a prominent political figure who is frequently involved in extremely robust debate himself.

    Oh and honest opinion would certainly cover Steve’s “I heard this and if this is the case then” statements.

  64. Felix 64
    4 June 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Scribe:

    There’s as much evidence that the PM is a lesbian as there is evidence that Key bought his seat, i.e. ZERO. I think that’s where the comparisons are coming from (certainly it’s why I brought it up).

    If you really can’t make a distinction between alleged secret political funding and alleged secret homosexuality then it’s probably not worth explaining why you brought it up.

    There are so many comparisons you could draw involving allegations with zero evidence but you pick sexuality as being the relevant one. It says a lot.

  65. Scribe 65
    4 June 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Robinson,

    Oh and honest opinion would certainly cover Steve’s “I heard this and if this is the case then’ statements.

    Well, except Steve never said anything remotely resembling “and if this is the case then…”

  66. Scribe 66
    4 June 2008 at 1:37 pm

    Felix,

    There are so many comparisons you could draw involving allegations with zero evidence but you pick sexuality as being the relevant one. It says a lot.

    If you say so, Felix. If you say so.

    The problem is that most of the allegations against Clark do have evidence to support them. I had trouble thinking of one that didn’t have supporting material.

  67. Steve Pierson 67
    4 June 2008 at 1:39 pm

    media privilege on covering politicans as a defence to defamation: http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/online/politics328/defnotes2.htm

    and, anyway, I’m just relating a story I’ve heard the gels with other stuff that’s come out. I seem to remember Key fudging an answer aobut how much he had given the Nats once, but can’t find a reference.

  68. Felix 68
    4 June 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Of course, you could have just made something up as an example.

    In fact, if you think the story about Mr Key is made up then that would be the logical way to make a comparison.

    But why bother eh?

  69. Scribe 69
    4 June 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Steve,

    From your link:

    b Privilege is lost if the media shows ill will or takes improper advantage – acts in a reckless way or with cavalier disregard for the truth, or is irresponsible. It is up to a jury to decide. Juries may be expected to treat MPs rigorously.

    I’m sure it’s a moot point, but I’d like to see you try the “and, anyway, I’m just relating a story I’ve heard [that] gels with other stuff that’s come out” defence.

  70. randal 70
    4 June 2008 at 1:50 pm

    who else did he buy along the way?

  71. Scribe 71
    4 June 2008 at 1:52 pm

    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)

  72. gobsmacked 72
    4 June 2008 at 2:09 pm

    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.

  73. hmm 73
    4 June 2008 at 2:14 pm

    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.

  74. Mike D 74
    4 June 2008 at 2:37 pm

    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.

  75. travellerev 75
    5 June 2008 at 4:22 pm

    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

  76. Steve Withers 76
    6 June 2008 at 12:21 am

    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.

  77. Robinsod 77
    6 June 2008 at 8:14 am

    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.

  78. travellerev 78
    6 June 2008 at 9:27 am

    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?

  79. hmm 79
    6 June 2008 at 11:23 am

    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.

  80. Robinsod 80
    6 June 2008 at 11:42 am

    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.

  81. First time caller 81
    6 June 2008 at 6:17 pm

    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?

  82. r0b 82
    6 June 2008 at 11:44 pm

    This is why labour is twenty six points behind in the polls.

    Well you can’t argue with logic like that.

Links to post