The H-fee explained

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, October 29th, 2008 - 159 comments
Categories: corruption, election 2008, john key - Tags:

A little more detail to flesh out Tane’s post. The core of the H-fee story is this:

In 1987, head of Equiticorp Allan Hawkins illegally helped Elders Merchant Finance in New Zealand with the takeover of another company. In return, Elders paid Hawkins $66m through a series of sham foreign exchange transactions. There were two so-called ‘H-Fee’ payments, which were fraudulent and illegal. When all this was uncovered, it was described as the biggest fraud in Australasian history. Hawkins and Kenneth Charles Jarrett, the head of Elders, went to jail.

John Key had joined Elders Merchant Finance in 1985. He was head of foreign exchange from 1985 until he left Elders. Key told the media and the Serious Fraud Office that he left in 1987, before the H-fee transactions took place in January and August 1988: “Just one small issue: Three months before any of those deals got decided, I had left Elders.”. Key has also said that, if he had been working at Elders when the H-fee transactions went through, he would have been making the transactions.

Actually, as now established by the Herald, Key left in June 1988, after the first H-fee. That means John Key was the head of Elders Forex when massive illegal transactions were being conducted by that business group. Key himself says that he would have been the one making the transactions. It remains to be seen if Key actually signed off the deals, but he clearly knows more than he led us to believe. Why else would he lie about the date that he left Elders on multiple occasions?

As so often with Key, we are left asking the same question: ‘if he has nothing to hide, why all the lies?’

159 comments on “The H-fee explained”

  1. Jeeves 1

    “Key has also said that, if he had been working at Elders when the H-fee transactions went through, he would have been making the transactions.”

    Where does it say that?

  2. insider 2

    Key was quoted on the radio as saying he has only found out about the first transaction now. Spookily I had wondered if this might be the case because that way the dates would add up.

    In other words (and this needs to be checked) he has never said he left in 87 only that he left 3 months before the illegal transaction occured. We have been assuming 87 because we knew about the first transaction.

  3. marco 3

    Its an interesting story this and not so much for the H fee because your average New Zealander barely remembers it and doesnt really understand it.
    Its interesting because in breaking the story the Herald have stolen the thunder from Labour (if it is to be believed that Labour were going to break the story).
    In breaking the story this afternoon they have been able to give John Key time to respond for tomorrows print, whilst allowing minimal coverage on the 6 O’Clock news. Im guessing that tomorrows Herald will not have any new or startling revelations and in fact will pretty much kill off the story. I may be wrong but it appears the Herald are trying to take the edge off a potentially damaging story.

  4. ben 4

    Steve, you get the right to take the moral high ground when your leader does the right and proper thing and sacks Winston. Until then, IMO you are being hypocritical in the extreme for not directing the same line of questioning at the present leadership.

  5. Rod 5

    So some guy in Australia did the first deal and went to jail for it – what has that got to do with “It remains to be seen if Key actually signed off the deals”?
    What exactly are the lies you refer to?
    Just as well responsible policemen investigated the case way back then, not you.
    You seem badly befuddled – perhaps it’s time for the retirement home for you, old chap.

  6. Felix 6

    macro that is exactly my reading of it as well.

  7. ben 7

    The article says

    “In 1988, Key was on the verge of leaving Elders”

    Key was not even called as a witness in the court case.

    You have nothing. What a total beat up.

  8. IrishBill 8

    “What exactly are the lies you refer to?”

    Those would be John’s lies to the Herald about when he left Elders. Why would he lie?

  9. insider 9

    If Marco and Felix are right and the Herald was trying to spike it, I would have pursued the angle that Labour are trying to dig dirt rahter than say key is being accused of misleading.

    It says the Herald has seen the court files – we assume the same as Mike Williams looked at – which looks like a joint approach by the Herald and Labour, just as Labour did with TVNZ on some other stories.

    It just doesn’t read like a preemptive strike

  10. ben 10

    Those would be John’s lies to the Herald about when he left Elders. Why would he lie?

    He wouldn’t. He might, on the other hand, get the date slightly wrong 20 years after the fact.

  11. IrishBill 11

    “He wouldn’t. He might, on the other hand, get the date slightly wrong 20 years after the fact.”

    So what you’re saying is after it came up on the radar as a serious issue and knowing that it could be used by Labour against him and having filed a statement with the Australian authorities about it he then got the date wrong in an interview with the Herald? An interview which he set up to set the record straight on the matter? Excuse me if I find that very hard to believe.

  12. Ianmac 12

    Do I have the impression that the site here is attracting the Nat support team? Still what they are saying is good counterbalance and often worth considering from my limited understanding. I guess that something might come out of it but since the “others Bill Ralston for eg” quote the Herald as an authority, and if Marc is right, the story might be killed tomorrow. Hope not. The MSM have certainly made a meal of Winston yet again and he is but a small player, but my mate John? Tomorrow then?

  13. Roflcopter 13

    But of course any information you’ve read/seen so far is far superior than anything the SFO could come up, right?

    *rolls eyes*

  14. RedLogix 14

    The relevant quote from the original Herald article/bio/blowjob dated July 19 this year is this:

    In 1988, Key was on the verge of leaving Elders, unshackling himself from a three-year contract after agreeing to three months’ “gardening leave” before taking up his new job at Bankers Trust, newly established in New Zealand. On his last day, he took Richards to lunch at a Wellington restaurant called Plimmer House where they drank champagne to mark Key’s departure. During the lunch, Richards had to leave, saying he had to meet Australian-based Elders director Ken Jarrett…….The record would show, he said, that he wasn’t involved. But the the interesting thing, Key said at the time, was that if he had still been working at Elders, it would likely have been him, not Richards, with whom Jarrett would have met that day.

    This implies that because Key was leaving Elders, that it was Jarret who handled the September transaction and therefore took the fall not Key. How very fortunate. But of course it leaves a huge unanswered question about who handled the equally illegal January transaction. It had to have been Key, yet today on RNZ he denies all knowledge of it.

    It also ties into IB’s point above. This was a critical juncture in Key’s professional life, even if he was innocent of all wrong-doing… he escaped involvment by the skin of his teeth. There is no question that these dramatic events were something any normal person would recall, and that in preparation for an in-depth interview with the Herald (not something that happens every day of the week for most of us) he should have ensured he had his dates and details correct.

    His apparent failure to get his story right tells us that he is covering something.

  15. bobo 15

    The Herald in effect were trying to deflect the story by breaking it today but I agree its too complicated for the average voter to understand, insider trading was also common place by alot of our prominent businessmen. Even after the the huge Herald bio on John Key a few months back I was none the wiser about his history only that he tended to think giving his personal email to a child in a high risk home environment was somehow doing his bit for charity..

    Doesn’t Owen Glen look sleazier every time you see him in Fiji on tv frolicking with his blonde “friends” and buying a mail order chiefdom… Helen made one of her biggest ever mistakes getting involved with this tobacco shipping tax evader who only wanted the Monaco post to get diplomatic immunity when entering the USA. Is he hanging around in Fiji till the election so he can fly over if Labour gets the boot to gloat.

  16. insider, et al. He told the Herald and the SFO that he left in 1987.

    insider. do you seriously think he only found out about the first h-fee now?
    – he was at Elders, in charge of the division when it happened
    – he was friends with Paul Richards, who carried out at least the second, if not the first, H-fee
    – he was interviewed by the SFO on the case
    – this was the largest fraud in Australasian history, involving his former work, his friends
    – when it was his story that he left in 1987, he was saying he left 3 months before the H-fee.
    – he refers to deals, plural

  17. Hum puzzling indeed.

    It appears that either John Key was involved or had knowledge about the H-fee scandal or he was involved with Andrew Krieger and his attack on the NZ dollar in 1987. I would like to know which one he (or his masters) thinks is the most damaging for his chances of being elected.

    It pays to remember that Bingham was one of the three journo’s who wrote the pre-emptive white wash “unauthorised” biography article published in the NZ Herald on 19 July.

    Let me give you one question that JK should be able to answer.

    1/ In this interview with Claire Trevett in which he states he had left Elders in early 1987 (way before the deal was done which was October 1987) to work for Bankers Trust).

    2/ On his Wiki page (By the way this had the 1987 date on a year ago and it changed but I can’t prove it) and in the NZ Herald he states that he moved to Bankers Trust after Andrew Krieger attacked the NZ dollar. Andrew Krieger stopped trading for Bankers Trust in February 1988

    In these interviews 1 and 2 he and his boss state unequivocally that he was the sole trader tasked with supplying Andrew Krieger with whatever he needed and dealing in millions with the man.

    Question: You must have been doing one or the other. Either you worked for Elders in a time which was arguably the most corrupt time at Elders or you were involved in the biggest attack on the NZ dollar. In the NZ Herald it is stated that the records will show that you, John Key worked with Andrew Krieger after the attack. Are you willing to show us those “records” and if not why not

  18. Janet 18

    At the end of National Radio’s Checkpoint Julian Robins reported from Invercargill on Key’s response. He had consulted with his minders (CT? ) on the road to Invercargill and delayed communication with the waiting media until after the TV news deadlines (or even Checkpoint’s).

    Julian then parroted the Nat P line that it was just a desperate Labour party looking for dirt, and a long time ago etc etc (I despair of these embedded journalists sometimes) –
    (not even mentioning that Key had attacked Helen all day over Monacco without justification)

    I think there will be a lot of activity happening behind the scenes getting the Herald to dilute and deflect this story and disappear it by morning.

  19. forgetaboutthelastone 19

    ‘On his Wiki page (By the way this had the 1987 date on a year ago and it changed but I can’t prove it)’

    Have you tried the ‘way back machine‘?.

    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key

  20. Ianmac 20

    By the way on NBR they report that the Two Johns Ad fall foul of the Standards Authority. Relates to inaccuracy of Kiwisaver cut in half.
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/two-johns-ad-falls-foul-standards-authority-37078

  21. Nick C 21

    “It remains to be seen if Key actually signed off the deals”

    What this means is: There is absolutely no evidence so far that Key signed off on the deals, or had anything to do with them beyond working at Elders at the time. More like a pop gun than a bomb

  22. hey RedLogix,

    F*&k politeness. LOL.

    All I want for those people who are waking up is to have a second look at the collapse of building 7.

    Peace

  23. Danny 23

    Ben, your comment “he might, … get the date slightly wrong …” is a joke, right?

    If you are not kidding, then you are obviously about 15 years old. Good on you for being interested in politics if so.

    But seriously kid, this was a big deal.

    Also, when one gets interviewed by the SFO as well as the ANCA relating to a FOREX trade at a firm where one was the head of FOREX trading, one f’in well remembers. You will learn this as you grow and experience things of magnitude.

  24. Danny 24

    Nick C said:

    “There is absolutely no evidence so far that Key signed off on the deals, or had anything to do with them beyond working at Elders at the time.”

    What he is really saying is:

    “I have no idea how large FOREX trades take place, but I really like National and don’t want this to be bad, in spite of my ignorance”

  25. vto 25

    So Key may have worked at a place at a time dodgy deeds were done dirt cheap.

    Clark was the numero uno at a place all the while knowing full well that her Foreign Minister was engaging in full blown outright lies to the NZ public about donations to his party and about Monaco Consul appointments. Foreign Minister has been found to be a perjurer by his own peers. Foreign Minister remains.

    hmmmmm, let me think – if I had to choose between the two……………….

  26. NeillR 26

    His apparent failure to get his story right tells us that he is covering something.
    Really? I’ve always found that people with something to hide are very careful to get their story right – like the Winston Peters of this world. Innocent people are much more likely to get something wrong, because they haven’t coached themselves to recall every last detail.

  27. Key IS a Liar 27

    John Key also denied any involvement with Andy Kreiger, head of Banker’s Trust and the multimillion dollar currency raid on the NZ dollar in 1987 “because he (Key) did not start at Banker’s Trust until 1988.” But it seems he was not involved with the H Trust Fee either because he was not working at Elders in 1987. John Key seems to play musical jobs depending on which multimillion dollar deal is under discussion. So dear readers take your pick. Key either served Kreiger’s desk and launched a raid on the NZ dollar costing the country 300 million and potentially tens of thousands of jobs, or, he was involved up to his neck in the H Trust Fee fraud. Neither deal is pretty nor befitting a potential Prime Minister of New Zealand.

  28. Danny 28

    “Innocent people are much more likely to get something wrong”

    What NeillR is really saying is “I have never had any Court experience and have never been involved in an investigation”

    Innocent people get things right. Innocent people also give verifiable details. They give them freely as they know they cannot be contradicted by what the investigator/cross examiner knows and is not letting on.

  29. NeillR, maybe we shouldn’t overlook the character traits and behavioral differences between a trained lawyer and an accountant.. both of whom shall doubtless produce pure irony on occasion.

  30. higherstandard 30

    Key is a liar are you Travellerev ?

  31. RedLogix 31

    Trav,

    The Business People article you linked to states in para. 10:

    Mr. Krieger joined Salomon Brothers and traded there for two years before leaving for Bankers Trust, where he scored big in 1987. But he quit Bankers Trust at the end of 1987, disappointed with a bonus of only $3 million of the $300 million he earned for the bank.

    Late 1987.

    Yet the Stuff article states:

    Key proved a successful “price maker”, setting Elders’ price for the kiwi from moment to moment, and attracting large flows of orders to buy and sell. He was headhunted by Bankers Trust to head their 30-strong dealing room in Auckland in 1988. Sources say Key was soon earning $1m each year in salary and bonuses, more than 30 times the average wage at the time.

    He formed what was to be a lucrative relationship with 32-year-old currency trader Andy Krieger, based at Bankers Trust in New York, who began putting hundreds of millions of dollars of business through Key’s dealing room.

    I know you have pointed all this out before, but according to the H-Fee story Key leaves Elders in June 1988. There simply is no way for him to have worked with Kreiger at Bankers Trust. According to these dates they missed each other by six months.

    This is getting plain weird.

  32. bobo 32

    The SFO obviously think Keys word is enough for them they are hopeless, I find it hard to think of a successful case they have won in the last 15 years which isn’t against some small time con. The exact timing of him getting out shows he knew the sH*t was gonna hit the fan, and no media actually followed up looking over his CV company history dates which were vague to say the least, in fraud timing is everything I agree he knew, my point was the average voter most likely wont take this in.

  33. RedLogix,

    You got it in one.
    So how about a niggly little question; which of two is true and “if the records truly show what you did. Well please show us those records. LOL.

  34. NeillR 34

    The real story here is who paid Mike Williams’ trip expenses – especially given that he’s got his snout so far in the public trough.

  35. rave 35

    So what is more damaging to Key, and how good is his alibi for both?

  36. tsmithfield 36

    This is a total beat-up:

    1. On the National Website JK said:

    “Mr Key says he has previously clarified the year of his departure from Elders in the New Zealand Herald on July 19.”

    2. The Herald, July 19, on JK’s bio, obviously based on an interview with JK, stated:

    “In 1988, Key was on the verge of leaving Elders, unshackling himself from a three-year contract after agreeing to three months’ “gardening leave” before taking up his new job at Bankers Trust, newly established in New Zealand. On his last day, he took Richards to lunch at a Wellington restaurant called Plimmer House where they drank champagne to mark Key’s departure. During the lunch, Richards had to leave, saying he had to meet Australian-based Elders director Ken Jarrett.”

    Precisely what JK has said in later interviews other than making a slip with the date. However, he had already previously provided the correct date to “The Herald”.

    3. According to the SST, last year:

    “Former Equiticorp boss Allan Hawkins and Australian-based expat and former Elders Merchant Finance executive Ken Jarrett have both confirmed Key’s claims he had nothing to do with H-Fee.”

    4. The SFO said of JK, in relation to this matter:

    ‘Mr Key was simply one in a “vast array of innocent people, potential witnesses, in a massive fact-gathering exercise. I feel compelled to fully support the reported comments of John Key in relation to the H-Fee transaction. It should not need to be said that John Key was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. For any politician to hint or suggest otherwise would be absolutely rubbish and pure mischief-making’.

    In summary, this is a total beat-up and can only serve to backfire on Labour.

  37. vto 37

    So Helen implied Key was a wife-beater with her comment “you might shout people down at home but you wont do it to me” during the debate thing.

    nasty. nasty. nasty. nasty.

    nasty.

    nasty. nasty.

    Says a whole lot about her in fact.

  38. Danny 38

    “The real story here is who paid Mike Williams’ trip expenses …”

    Awwwh, so that’s the reeeeal story.

    Here is me thinking that the possibility of the man on the verge of being our next PM being in some way involved in the biggest white collar crime in our nation’s history was the story.

    I was obviously looking at it the wrong way.

  39. Danny 39

    tsmithfield,

    “… Allan Hawkins and … Ken Jarrett have both confirmed Key’s claims”

    Well that settles it then, those are two upstanding and trustworthy individuals …

  40. Could He Have Worked Both Jobs? 40

    How is it possible for John Key to be involved in either deal? a) Kreiger’s Bankers Trust currency raid, and, b) Elder”s H Fee swindle? The Banker’s Trust raid occurred in 1987 and Elders H Fee fraud occurred in 1988. John Key by is own admission was working for neither firm at the time of these deals..

  41. RedLogix 41

    This quote also confirms the date Krieger left Bankers Trust:

    Unhappiness with his bonus was said to be the reason for the resignation of Andrew Krieger, a 31-year-old foreign-exchange trader for Bankers Trust. He resigned on the day the 1987 bonuses were given out. Bankers Trust, unlike most other financial institutions, paid its highest bonuses ever for 1987. The bank would not disclose the size of Mr. Krieger’s bonus, but people on Wall Street speculated that Mr. Krieger received at least $2.5 million.

    From: NYTimes Business Week

    Article is dated 28th Febuary 1988.

  42. jake 42

    So a 26 year old, neophyte, Key was brought in to help mastermind one of the most insidious deals of the decade. God, if they had that much respect for him 20 years ago, maybe we should, as well 😉 I hope you guys get full credit for this one. Otherwise, Helen’s going to have to wear it. And Labour, which, you will remember, was the Government that benefitted from the transactions.

  43. tsmithfield 43

    Danny “Well that settles it then, those are two upstanding and trustworthy individuals ”

    They would have no motivation to lie. In fact, they would probably like to pin the blame on someone else if they could.

    With respect to the first transaction, Key, in the Herald article, has said:

    “The court documents show that it was handled by Elders staff in Australia. “That’s why I’ve never known about it because it never went through our [Elders Merchant Finance] books,” said Mr Key.

    This statement is based on clear records in the court documents. It is absolutely reasonable to expect that JK would not know about financial transactions that were handled by another branch in a different country. I don’t think I have to argue too hard here that he is not God.

    This is clearly a beat-up as I said.

  44. r0b 44

    So Helen implied Key was a wife-beater with her comment “you might shout people down at home but you wont do it to me’ during the debate thing.

    Shame on you vto.

  45. mike 45

    Neutron fizzer guys

    The first tranaction was from the Aussie books which is why Key was in the dark. But this cut from the SFO report says it all really

    “Mr Key was simply one in a “vast array of innocent people, potential witnesses, in a massive fact-gathering exercise. I feel compelled to fully support the reported comments of John Key in relation to the H-Fee transaction. It should not need to be said that John Key was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. For any politician to hint or suggest otherwise would be absolutely rubbish and pure mischief-making'”

    no wonder clark wants to distance herself from this tripe

  46. vto 46

    h aha r0b, I always find myself regretting things. Get this great urge to stomp on toes and then when someone says “ouch that was my toes” regret storms in.

    But really, shame on her.

    btw, you is not she is you?

  47. RedLogix 47

    tsmithfield,

    You are running a distraction. There are several major discrepancies here:

    1. The H-Fee deal was dreamed up in October 1987, and the first illegal transaction took place early 1988, while John Key was the head of Elders FOREX division and by his own admission was the person most likely to have handled it.

    2. According to these court documents he does not leave Elders until June 1988, and then takes 3 months leave before starting with rival firm Bankers Trust. (There is no possibility that he worked for both at the same time.)

    3. While at BT Key has repeatedly claimed that he had a close and lucrative relationship with the infamous Andrew Krieger.

    4. However according to several cross-checked sources, and this thread has provided several, Krieger has left BT by Febuary 1988.

    Key and Krieger missed each other by at least six months. Work it out for yourself… something smells much worse here than any old snapper.

  48. Ianmac 48

    By the way. Is it possible that Krieger was dealing via Key in overlapping dates? Would explain the apparent date mix ups.

  49. Bankers Trust and NZ Rail 49

    Another thing…..

    Hansards

    Has the Prime Minister received any reports, namely, for example, from Booz Allen and Hamilton, that say that New Zealand Rail was making $36 million in 1993 and was down to make $100 million in 1994; and does she therefore not believe that taxpayers are entitled to some compensation for the 1993 sale of New Zealand Rail by the then National Government to its corrupt mates in Fay Richwhite and a foreign-owned company, Wisconsin Central Transportation?

    Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member, like the Labour Party, opposed that sale. But there was one person who fully backed that sale and that was Mr Key, a director of Bankers Trust, which got the contract to advise the New Zealand Government on that sale. That sale was worth $400 million to the New Zealand Government?the National Government?in 1993. In that same year?the 1993 financial year?Bankers Trust, of which Mr Key was a director, pocketed $39 million in profit. Members should ask themselves the question, who benefited from the sale of Tranz Rail? Mr Key and his friends.

    [lprent: Settle on a name and build a rep with it. It is annoying when people use their handle as a editorial]

  50. higherstandard 50

    While I’m sure posting under a different name is good for the sites stats tis a little bit trollish don’t you think ?

    Why doesn’t everyone just wait till tomorrow to see what the story actually is – i.e is there anything new or is it the same old story rehashed again for its smear value.

    [lprent: Makes no difference to site stats. That runs on IP’s for things like unique visitors. This is a just a newbie]

  51. Macro 51

    jake
    26 was hardly a ‘neophyte” in that unreal world at that time.

  52. r0b 52

    btw, you is not she is you?

    Nah vto, I’m just a fan of her work.

  53. Danny 53

    tsmithfield

    “They would have no motivation to lie”

    They may have every motivation to lie.

    Do you not know the story?

  54. Vlad the Impaler 54

    John Key is telling porkies about where he was and what he was doing in the 1987/1988 period.

    When Elders was involved in the biggest fraud in Australia and NZ history, John was in charge See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10539975

    When Andy Kreiger headed the New York desk Bankers Trust and raiding the NZ currency, ” Key remembers getting a call from Krieger. The New York trader’s first question was about New Zealand’s GDP and money supply.”

    See: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4385816a6160.html

    When Michael Faye was consultant to the National Govt on rail and John Key headed Bankers Trust as advisor to the the National Govt on rail, both profited hugely from the sale.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0807/S00077.htm

  55. Monty 55

    whoa hooo – the turning point of the election – Clark and her poodle are up to their necks in corruption allegations – cash for honorary consulate and honours – in the meantime the left respond with a water gun attack on did john Key pay for lunch?

    Well guys I think this is important – from the head of the SFO at the time that: “Mr Key was simply one in a vast array of innocent people, potential witnesses, in a massive fact-gathering exercise. I feel compelled to fully support the reported comments of John Key in relation to the H-Fee transaction. It should not need to be said that John Key was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. For any politician to hint or suggest otherwise would be absolutely rubbish and pure mischief-making”

    in the meantime how is the economy going?

  56. Vlad the Impaler 56

    Excuse us for deviating from APN’s ( Monopoly-Over-Mainstream-Media) orchestrated attacks on Peters but there are many unanswered questions involving John Key and the many lies he has told regarding his role in the biggest fraud in NZ’s history and the most predatory currency raid on the NZ dollar.

    These may seem questions insignificant to those who dwell in blue ribbon La La land but to the average voter they raise some pretty important questions about the integrity of one John Key and his adequacy to lead NZ.

  57. Hamish 57

    Vlad the Impaler, you’re an idiot.

    John was in charge for the first transaction of the scam, no one is trying to dispute that. However that particular part of the scam was in Australia. Not in New Zealand, where John was in charge at that time. John was not responsible. Every single body that has looked into this has come to the same judgment. By the time the second part of scam, John was well gone and not involved at all.

    The only mistake here is that John told the Herald last year that he left in 1987, rather than 1988. That is for him to clear up. However I should note that in his autobiography by the Herald this year, he did state the right time in accordance to when he left Elders. Maybe he just made a mistake at the first interview, which is easy to do considering the event was twenty years ago.

    But lets say that on the very unlikely chance you’re all right, and that John did cover up his emplyment dates at Elders to the SFO and the other bodies when they were investigating because he was involved. If John had told the SFO that he left his position in 1987 to them in their interview, they would have very easily been able to contradict him, considering they had all the correct employment evidence at hand. But considering they cleared him of any wrong doing, it would be highly likely that he did supply them with the correct information, and that he did not in fact mislead them as suggested above surrounding his employment dates.

  58. Hamish,

    would you kindly clarify both extent and meaning to your lines 2 & 3..?

  59. higherstandard 59

    Interesting that Helen Clark on the 10.30 news looked like she didn’t want to have anything to do with this story at all.

  60. HS. just see what is in the Herald tomorrow, rather than trying to infer this is all nothing from your view of how the PM looked in an interview

  61. Hamish 61

    The problem is that I doubt Labour would have put all this work into it if they knew they were chasing after a dud. There must be something that caught their eye. Winston was even gloating about it earlier last week. What was revealed today certainly wasn’t it.

    jo zinny – There were two H-Fee’s (or scam transactions). One from the Australian branch of Elders, and one from the branch in New Zealand. The one from New Zealand was after Key had left in 1988, so Key himself was not personally involved. As for the other H-Fee, which many people on this site have accussed John of having some part in, it was conducted by the Australian branch, and had no interaction (or proven interaction) with the branch in New Zealand.

  62. higherstandard 62

    Clinton

    The vast amount of inferring seems to be coming from authors at this blog at present.

    The only thing official on the whole H-FEE issue to date is the findings of the serious fraud office

    “”Mr Key was simply one in a vast array of innocent people, potential witnesses, in a massive fact-gathering exercise. I feel compelled to fully support the reported comments of John Key in relation to the H-Fee transaction. It should not need to be said that John Key was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. For any politician to hint or suggest otherwise would be absolutely rubbish and pure mischief-making’

    So to take any of this seriously one would have to accept that Mike Williams is a more competent investigator of wrong doing than the combined efforts of the SFO.

    But yes let’s wait for the article in the herald tomorrow.

  63. higherstandard 63

    And Clinton what I was inferring was maybe Mike Williams was not acting on the PMs orders which would suggest he’s in for a big botty spanking if this backfires.

  64. Hamish 64

    Winston knew about it earlier this week HS. He was gloating about it. If he knew, then Clark definitely had a very large role in it.

  65. ken 65

    Is this all Labour has on John Key?? As a swinging voter, I’m right off Labour for suggesting that this evidence in a matter from the 1980’s is some how a reason not to vote for him.

    I don’t like dirty politics and Labours is deep into it.

    Gosh, National could be raising all sorts of minor historical things about Labour, but they are not, which makes them look far more principlled to me. Or bigger stories …

    Like the new Owen Glenn affair, or diplomatic intervention at LAX for example. Good on National for not going there with any of that.

    No, I think Labour has sunk to a new low with inuendo from the 1980’s, how about some policy perhaps?

    [Tane: I don’t know why right-wing trolls keep coming on here with new pseudonyms pretending to be ‘swinging voters’ turned off by Labour’s ‘corruption’ and ‘dirty tricks’, or whatever line National is pushing at the time. Don’t take us for fools – you were banned under a previous pseudonym and you remain banned.]

  66. Peter Nelson 66

    Wow, just come back from Australia for 3 weeks. Had enough of the bloody mines, but the money is too good to refuse.

    Gee, this election is a real hum-dinger, unlike the sterile affair in Aust last year. Rudd was always going to win that.

    From what my brother has said who I am staying with, there is a lot of slur coming out from both sides.

    I am really interested to see what comes out tomorrow, but like most things I don’t think Key will be hurt. Mud is hard to stick in election campaigns.

    Labour need a king hit on this or else they may well be finished. Or is there more to come?

  67. Vlad the Impaler 67

    Sorry? The Herald? Is the Herald not owned by media monopolist APN? The same outfit which owns just about every other news media outlet in NZ?

    If John Key was involved in the Elders fraud or the Bankers Trust raid we will not learn about it via the NZ Herald or any of the rest of New Zealand’s APN media monopoly orchestra. If anything, these media propagandists will repress the facts and echo only what John Key thinks about Labour.

    The Herald? LOL. A mere pale shadow of extreme right wing Investigate Magazine.

  68. Danny 68

    “As a swinging voter”

    What a knob.

  69. Ianmac 69

    Helen said that they were about to release a story but that the Herald one was not it. As a conspiracy theory would the Herald run a weak story to undermine Labour’s one about to come out? Nah. Surely not. In the meantime Helen gets the blame along with Williams. Its possible that there are two different stories. Oh Hell. Go to bed Ian!

  70. burt 70

    Come on stop this complete and utter speculation about what happens next, because you are all way wrong.

    The PM will ask John Key in private if he benefited from the fraud and he will say no. The Media ask him and he holds up a sign – “NO”. Then the PM says she takes the word of the honorable member and we move on. For the next six months John Key will be saying it’s a conspiracy theory and a media beat-up.

    It’s a great story all the same.

  71. Vlad the Impaler 71

    If anyone disputes what has been said about who owns NZ news then take a good look at APN on google then have a search through the shareholder data pdf file on APN’s front page. Run some of these shareholders through Wikipedia. We ought to have laws governing mainstream media monopoly.
    How can we have democratically free and fair elections otherwise?

    http://www.apn.com.au/

  72. dave 72

    Boooooooooooooooring. The Herald won`t have anything juicy tomorrow. there’s nothing to write about. The smoking gun had no smoke and wouldnt fire.

  73. rave 73

    Redlogix I draw the conclusion that Key was in two places at once. In Auckland where if he didnt actually run the first Elders’ scam there is no way that he could not have known about it. And at the same time he was on the phone to Krieger offering him advice on the parlous state of the NZ economy and the state of the dollar.

    Key has no morality when it comes to money as he said in “Who is JK” following orders is all there is. Krieger is a bit of a maverick why would JK have to work for Bankers Trust in NY to work for Krieger? 1987 was after all one hell of a year. The stinking fish is 21 years old.

  74. Ms M 74

    Umm. Question. What do you call it when an article is published on a news website containing a certain piece of information when published in 2007 but when that same article is accessed today it no longer contains that piece of information?

    Yes I do have a link for the original article as it was cross posted in it’s entirety on a discussion blog on the day it first appeared on the news site in 2007.

    The information now omitted is, err, pretty pertinent to when John Key left Elders as it makes mention of a specific 1987 event. The article no longer alludes to that event.

  75. sweetd 75

    “It should not need to be said that John Key was completely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever,” Mr Sturt said.

    “For any politician to hint or suggest otherwise would be absolute rubbish and pure mischief-making.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4743294a28435.html

  76. Tim Ellis 76

    I struggle again to see the point of these smears against John Key.

    There were two H-Fee payments. The first was in January 1988. The second was in September 1988.

    John Key was head of the foreign exchange dealing room at Elders New Zealand in January 1988. The first H-Fee payment was designed and managed by Elders Australia. There is no evidence that John Key had anything to do with that payment. The person who designed it and the person who received it, have denied repeatedly that Key had anything to do with the payment. Charles Sturt has publicly pointed out that Key had nothing to do with the payment.

    John Key resigned from Elders in June 1988.

    The second H Fee took place in September 1988. Again, the people involved in that transaction, and Charles Sturt, have said that Key had nothing to do with that transaction.

    Key joined Bankers Trust after leaving Elders. Andrew Krieger’s “raids” on the New Zealand dollar took place before Key joined BT.

    That’s what all the evidence to light says.

    Are you guys really this desperate?

  77. r0b 77

    I struggle again to see the point of these smears against John Key.

    What “smears” Tim? Various facts have been reported, but I don’t see any “smears”.

    Are you guys really this desperate?

    You should direct your question to The Herald, which broke the story. Currently their article on this subject concludes “Read more in tomorrow’s NZ Herald, plus exclusive online audio of Key’s 2007 interview”. They seem to think they’re on to something big. I guess tomorrow we’ll find out eh? Sleep well…

  78. Tim Ellis 78

    Sigh. Okay, r0b, I’ll bite. You want to know what smears.

    John Key had joined Elders Merchant Finance in 1985.

    True. He joined Elders New Zealand.

    He was head of foreign exchange from 1985 until he left Elders.

    Not true. He was head of the New Zealand dealing room. He had no position of authority at Elders Australia, which had its own forex unit.

    Key told the media and the Serious Fraud Office that he left in 1987,

    There’s no evidence he said that to the SFO. He made a comment to the Herald, which he corrected several months ago.

    before the H-fee transactions took place in January and August 1988:

    Wrong. Key never made reference to the first (Australian) H-Fee transaction, because there was never an allegation that he had anything to do with the first transaction, or had any knowledge of it. The second transaction was in September, not August.

    “Just one small issue: Three months before any of those deals got decided, I had left Elders.’.

    Key was referring to the September transaction. Key resigned from Elders in June 1988, three months before the September H-Fee transaction. Key’s statement was true.

    Key has also said that, if he had been working at Elders when the H-fee transactions went through, he would have been making the transactions.

    And what Key has said hasn’t contradicted that. Key left Elders before the New Zealand H-Fee transactions. He had nothing to do with it.

    Actually, as now established by the Herald, Key left in June 1988, after the first H-fee.

    The first H-Fee being the Australian transaction that Key had no knowledge or involvement in.

    That means John Key was the head of Elders Forex when massive illegal transactions were being conducted by that business group.

    Wrong. Key was in charge of the dealing room in New Zealand, when an Australian forex group began a massive illegal transaction.

    Key himself says that he would have been the one making the transactions.

    No he doesn’t.

    It remains to be seen if Key actually signed off the deals, but he clearly knows more than he led us to believe.

    Wrong, and yet another smear. Numerous people, from the person who received the transaction, to the person who arranged the transaction at Elders Australia, to the people who ran the SFO investigation into the transaction, have made clear that Key had nothing to do with the transaction. It doesn’t remain to be seen if Key signed off the deals. If he had signed them off, then he would have spent jail time, as Jarrett and Hawkins did.

    Why else would he lie about the date that he left Elders on multiple occasions?

    Wrong again. There is no evidence that Key lied once, let alone on multiple occasions. There is evidence that Key gave an incorrect piece of information to the Herald, which Key subsequently and immediately corrected. If that is dishonest and constitutes a lie, then every piece of incorrect information that SP comes up with (and there’s plenty of that), is dishonest and a lie.

    Facts have not been reported r0b. “Facts”, in SP’s case, have been invented. This blog post is the very anatomy of a smear.

  79. r0b 79

    You want to know what smears.

    What you list is a bunch of factual claims, some of which you dispute (and you may be right or wrong, I’m not an expert on this case), but none of which constitutes a “smear”.

    Only the last one “lied on multiple occasions” looks like a smear if it isn’t true. But of course true is what it may be eh? Why don’t we both wait until tomorrow and see what, if anything, The Herald has up its sleeve? They are still teasing us with “Read more in tomorrow’s NZ Herald, plus exclusive online audio of Key’s 2007 interview”…

    G’night.

  80. milo 80

    Okay, I guess I’ll get banned for this, but here goes. As you ban me, just note that I have defended Standard posters on kiwiblog at times, and criticised actions by National and kiwiblog posters that I disagree with.

    You shriek “LIAR” at John Key over any unanswered question, minor inconsistency or (perfectly normal) minor difference in recollection or interpretation. You engage in defamations, beat-ups and generally do anything to personally attack John Key. Yet the misrepresentations in your stories are far greater than any inconsistencies in John Key’s. You are hypocrites, and strangers to the truth. If John Key is a liar, The Standard are liars four times over.

    Frankly, this behaviour disgusts me, and I hope none of you are ever in a position of political power, where your rank hypocrisy and double standards could be imposed on a wider audience.

    The stink of your intellectual dishonesty makes me want to puke.

  81. Swampy 81

    “Lie” is practically a swear word in politics where it is frequently used as a denigratory slur against an opponent in contexts that would never be entertained in everyday life.

    If you’re going to keep throwing claims like that about, you should be providing some evidence. Just because so and so said such and such is not evidence.

  82. r0b 82

    Wassamatter Milo – you seem a bit tense?

    You’ve long had an unhealthy fascination with this blog, up to and including describing participants as “Labour party brownshirts in the assault on free speech”. You’ve described the government as an “enemy of democracy” that “seeks to outlaw disagreement”. Do you think it’s possible that your judgment may just be a teeny bit biased? Just a bit? Maybe?

    Anyway, hope you wake up in a better mood tomorrow, perhaps by then the whole story will have fizzled out eh?

  83. Interesting, a large number of kiwibloggers appear to be sitting on information regarding the possibility of a dangerous pedophile being on the loose in New Zealand. I find this deeply concerning, for the safety of every bodies kids, a complaint should be made to the police immediately. Of course, kiwiblog will need to be subpoenaed for the IP address’ of the posters who have this evidence, and them all taken to court at witnesses.

    Whether or not the alleged event actually happened, they all seem quite sure that it occurred, why else would they feel comfortable accusing somebody of such a serious crime in public? As they are this confident, does any one else here find it repugnant that they are sitting on information, that is possibly costing the safety of our children (regardless of whether the event occurred or not), to release it at a more politically advantageous time? National, Farrar, Whale and their other supporters are practically facilitating the molestation of children for their own electoral (and financial) gain.

  84. Ms M 84

    Tim

    “Just one small issue: Three months before any of those deals got decided, I had left Elders.’. Herald Friday Aug 24, 2007

    Key was referring to the September transaction. Key resigned from Elders in June 1988, three months before the September H-Fee transaction. Key’s statement was true.

    Tim, sorry but that quote is in reference to the deal making that happened in 1987 not the 1988 September H-Fee transaction. From the same article:

    Mr Key said he left Elders Merchant Finance in 1987 three months before the “H-Fee” was dreamed up and knew nothing of it.

  85. Doug 85

    Great headline in the New Zealand Herald!!

    ‘Neutron bomb’ on Key proves fizzer for Govt.
    Says it all.

  86. higherstandard 86

    KITNO

    Agreed it’s disgraceful that a vile urban legend continues to circulate and be given air about Peter in an attempt to smear him and Helen by association.

    Now how do you feel that similar behaviour has been demonstrated yet again by Mike Williams and the Labour party according to today’s papers ?

  87. Williams is a fuckin idiot but the Herald’s treatment of the story is weird – why would they run a story they knew didn’t stack up as if it did only to cut the feet out of it the next day? I reckon they decided to sting Labour via Williams and he walked straight into it! I thought the guy was supposed to be an operator???

    After this cock-up National’s gonna claim any attack on their policy or capability is part of a smear campaign – and they’re gonna get away with it…

  88. higherstandard 88

    Sod

    Agreed – This idea people have that the political parties back room boys are Machiavellian geniuses is so much drivel – on the evidence to date in NZ the senior management and strategists in the political parties are just as likely to be of the buffoon variety as those in the public sector and private industry – and in my experience the competent people in those two spheres are grossly outnumbered by the morons.

  89. Tim Ellis 89

    Robinsod,

    I really doubt the Herald did a sting on Williams. Williams reportedly went to Melbourne, and took a couple of Labour Party research unit researchers with him, to trawl through the 13,000 pages of evidence. The reports say that it was Williams who delivered the “evidence” to the Herald. The “smoking gun” was apparently John Key’s signature on the dealing slips in the transactions, which SP hinted at in this post, when he wrote:

    It remains to be seen if Key actually signed off the deals, but he clearly knows more than he led us to believe.

    I don’t doubt that SP was fed information from the Labour Party research unit on this. This comment clearly says to me that the Labour Party thought there was evidence that Key had signed off on the deals.

    It was Williams who fed the information and rumours of the “smoking gun” to the Herald. Somebody–almost certainly in the Labour Party research unit–also fed the same rumours to Fairfax, as the Dom Post makes clear this morning.

    You’re quite right robinsod, this is a major cock-up from Labour. The smoking gun that Labour was holding has shot themselves in the foot.

    [sorry to burst your bubble, Tim, it’s just a turn of phrase. SP]

  90. Tim – I don’t mean they active sought to sting him but I figure he bumbled along with that shit and they thought “here’s a chance to make a fool of Labour” – they knew there was no “smoking gun” when they ran the “smoking gun – more tomorrow” story yesterday – why would you do that if not to set Williams up for a fool?

  91. Rod 91

    WOW! Talk about a smoking gun … this from the Herald:

    Labour minister and campaign strategist Pete Hodgson was more forthcoming: “Either [the Herald] have been misled or the Serious Fraud Office has been misled – I don’t know. If the SFO has been willingly misled, issues of perjury arise, but I’m a veterinarian, not a lawyer.”

    Guilty of nastiness as charged … wasn’t he the beat them up guy from last election – in Dunedin wasn’t it?

    Go back and get your kicks from emasculating cats, Pete.

    And maybe you could give the author of the post above a job smearing on ointment, he’s good at smearing.

  92. Tim Ellis 92

    Tim – I don’t mean they active sought to sting him but I figure he bumbled along with that shit and they thought “here’s a chance to make a fool of Labour’ – they knew there was no “smoking gun’ when they ran the “smoking gun – more tomorrow’ story yesterday – why would you do that if not to set Williams up for a fool?

    That might well be true, robinsod. Williams lured the Herald over to Melbourne last week to trawl through the court documents, on the promise of the great smoking gun. It may well have been by last night that the Herald decided that the smoking gun was non-existent, and that the real story was the Labour Party president, and a couple of Labour Party researchers muck-raking and spreading dirt to smear John Key. It looked last night when the story broke that the news was going to be pretty sensational–it turned out this morning that it was indeed sensational, but not the story that we thought it was going to be.

    I heard from a Labour Party source–and I’m not blowing smoke here, it was the husband of a Labour Party candidate at a meet-the-candidates meeting, and I’m happy to name the candidate’s husband and the date of the meeting where he said it to me in the conversation–that there was supposedly a whole lot of dirt on John Key, relating to the H-Fee. That was over a month ago. The Labour Party have been peddling this muck for some time to anybody who will listen.

  93. higherstandard 93

    Rod

    Indeed one of the most bizarre comments by a politician since John Bank’s screeching effort about poodles and rubber stamping fetishes etc.

  94. vto 94

    Such a shame I have to depart for the whitebait-soaked boondox again today – the election is just starting to get interesting.

    What with Peters exposed as a simple out and out liar again. And now with labour’s neutron bomb blowing up in its face. (both hardly surprising given that that ever present force called karma lives so vibrantly. why do people ignore it?).

    There was a bit of a push back to the left in the polls. I suspect that swing, which would have swung back to the nats etc anyway, will reverse with extra force now. Thanks Winston Bjeikle-Peterson (he sounds like him more and more every day – does anyone manage to understand the garble that comes out of his mouth).

    The election is next weekend – people’s decisions will be starting to firm. 2c.

  95. NeillR 95

    I reckon they decided to sting Labour via Williams and he walked straight into it!

    I think “sting” is too strong. Take the cartoon in this morning’s Herald. If the Herald was really after Williams, then it would have been him getting egg on his face in the last frame, not Key.

    As for the rest, there’s no doubt that Labour has been throwing allegations around about this for some time. Helen Clark is trying to distance herself from it, but given the amount of resources that Labour’s thrown at it, she must have had a significant involvement. If only they’d spent all that time and effort on trying to fix the country’s woes.

  96. Carol 96

    What strikes me as strange, is that this story came from the NZ Herald, supposedly on the basis of info given to them by the Labour Party. If Labour thought that had some incriminating evidence, wouldn’t they have given it to either TV One or TV3 in time for their evening news?

    It all seems to me like an attempt by NZ Herald to defuse whatever Labour had on Key, or to bury the rumours floating around on this.

    Either Labour doesn’t have anything, or they’re still holding what they think is the damning evidence.

  97. Tim Ellis 97

    On this point, DPF alleges this morning that the Standard deleted a post from Batman on this issue, dated 13 October. Where has this post gone? Is this the same Batman who leaked material to the Dominion Post on the H Fee, which was almost certainly produced by the Labour Party research unit?

  98. IrishBill 98

    Tim, that would be this post:

    Guest Post: The Road to Lonsdale Street – Part 1

    It certainly seems that we got the same material as the Dom Post. One of my comrades ran the first piece and then we had a look into it and decided it wasn’t firm enough to run with. I assumed yesterday the Herald had something more concrete because they were headlining it. I guess that old saying about “assume” stands true.

  99. vto 99

    Yes Tim Ellis, I just saw that too. Farrar asks some good questions re The Standard. Wonder if anyone would care to answer…

    The one re whether any authors here are parliamentary etc staffers is worthy. I have wondered this myself given the amount of detailed info and links that comes pouring out in defence of all things labour from some posters here.

    Not that there would appear to be anything wrong with that I guess, unless it is perhaps in breach of employment norms or is a little deceptive and devious. r0b, you make such posts and obviously care a great deal about your politics, which is all good. What you think? Feel free to ignore as it is a little intrusive given the anon nature of this site.

  100. Andrew 100

    The first post was writen by an ‘Author’ called batman:

    http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:k37MswLjRjIJ:www.thestandard.org.nz/author/batman/+Batman+%22thestandard%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nz

    Now it’s posted as a ‘Guest Post’. Where did Batman go? Was he an author? Albeit for one post. Would be interesting to see where his IP address leads to?

  101. Tim Ellis 101

    Ah yes, thank you IB. I assumed from what DPF wrote that Batman’s post had been deleted, but I see now that it had merely been changed with an update.

    I assumed yesterday the Herald had something more concrete because they were headlining it. I guess that old saying about “assume’ stands true.

    It really does puzzle me why SP and several other commenters at the Standard got so excited by it yesterday. It is clear that some on the Left were absolutely vehement that the smoking gun–John Key’s signature on the dealing slips–had been uncovered, which is why SP no doubt hinted that the Herald possibly had evidence that John Key “signed off” on the transactions.

    My reading, however, is that as of last night’s news bulletin, when One News ran with the story, that the PM was distancing herself from the story from that point. She said she hadn’t “handled” the issue. She must have known that the evidence didn’t stack up, and that the other story–that Mike Williams took several Labour Party researchers to Melbourne to trawl through the documents on a fishing expedition for the smoking gun–would become the big story.

  102. Fool 102

    A fishing trip with the hope of flushing out some reaction from national?

    Combined with a cap in hand bagging expedition to the Australian Labor Party perhaps? For a media workshop?

    Looking for a new job Mike?

    [lprent: don’t use e-mail addresses in th name field – changing to something more suitable. Also adding to moderation to draw your attention to it]

  103. IrishBill 103

    Tim, yeah one of the standardistas (who will go unnamed) decided it deserved its own author as it was part of a series being anonymously emailed to us. Others, including myself, didn’t believe that was an appropriate way to do it so we changed it to a guest post on the same day, dug into the story and then decided there wasn’t enough hard evidence to run with it any further. That’s why there was no part two.

    Ironically we thought it had too much potential to backfire. It seems others on the left didn’t.

  104. John Stevens 104

    Irish – your comment on assumption reminds me about the old Steve Segal movie. Always stuck in my head.
    Goon 1 ‘He is dead.’
    Goon 2 ‘Did you see the body?’
    Goon 1 ‘No, but I assume he is dead.’
    Goon 2 ‘Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.’

  105. Carol 105

    Another point that puzzles me:

    There’s been rumours of Labour holding a neutron bomb for some time, which they were going to drop during the campaign. Yet the Herald story yesterday tallks of Williams going to Melbourne in the last week to trawl through court records. If they already had sufficient evidence, or were missing one small piece, why wait til the last week for the trip to Melbourne?

  106. coge 106

    Well at least Labour knew it was time to “call the vet”
    & put Hodgson on the job. Time that old nag of a party was put down. What the public really need to know is whay Williams & a team of Labour party researchers used taxpayer money for this latest sojourn to Melbourne. Also Clark distancing herself from the issue, meant she had prior knowledge of it in that she knew there was a very good chance of blowback. If there was anything it the story she likely would have front footed it.

  107. expat 107

    Sounds like the Standard and Labour are awfully close to libel.

    You don’t want to make accusations that are untrue and the SFO have made clear are untrue and you can’t prove, do you?

    Another drop of the ball by the research team.

    H1 and H2 must be incandescent.

    [lprent: Nowhere near libel. Perhaps you should read the actual posts rather than other peoples comments. But thats right you’re a troll…. You haven’t been able to read in the past, why should you now? How many times have I banned you?]

  108. vto 108

    Clark says the story is not one she is running…

    Huh? I don’t know who she thinks would believe that. The master/mistress of deception. Surely that is a lie.

    Another example of the reins of power tainting those who hold them too long (one of many several for Clark). As ever in the filed of human history.

    She must go. And if she doesn’t I predict whe will blow apart during a fourth term.

  109. Tim Ellis 109

    There’s been rumours of Labour holding a neutron bomb for some time, which they were going to drop during the campaign. Yet the Herald story yesterday tallks of Williams going to Melbourne in the last week to trawl through court records. If they already had sufficient evidence, or were missing one small piece, why wait til the last week for the trip to Melbourne?

    Carol, you’re asking people not involved in Labour Party’s strategy to justify Labour Party strategy.

    Labour have clearly been talking up rumours of a neutron bomb for some time. These rumours have appeared from various posters here at the Standard, through comments made by press gallery journalists, to hints from senior Labour politicians. This has several effects: if a neutron bomb did exist (even if they didn’t have it), it flushes it out. If they didn’t have the neutron bomb, then it potentially intimidates John Key in a game of psychological warfare. Thirdly, if they didn’t have one, the mere hint that there was one, and consistently talking it up, convinces many (including several Standard commenters) that the neutron bomb must exist.

    Why wait for the last week for Melbourne? I suspect, and it’s just my opinion, that Labour realised it didn’t have the smoking gun, felt desperately about the poll position and desperately hoped that the smoking gun existed in the court documents.

    It is my belief that the Labour Party campaign has been structured entirely around rumour-mongering of the smoking gun: the “this one is about trust”, the “two Johns”, the “slippery John” attacks, the obsession among Labour Party sympathisers with John Key–have all been pre-cursors to the neutron bomb, supposed to be released today–which would confirm and validate every claim the Labour Party has made about John Key’s credibility. Instead of validating those claims, the non-existent neutron bomb has destroyed those claims, and destroyed Labour’s credibility.

  110. Ms M 110

    Coge excellent news the vets on the case! I said last night the story is not H-Fee but what Key told the investigators and it seems Hodgson agrees with me. Either he lied to the Herald about leaving Elders in 1987, and ultimately lying to the New Zealand public or he’s lied in 1991 when being investigated as one of many H-Fee witnesses.

  111. Billy 111

    This is truly hilarious. You guys were soooo excited at the top of this thread and now you’ve just kind of…run…out…of…steam.

    Williams’ phone is switched off. Pete Hodgson is in hiding and Helen has said all she has to say about the issue.

  112. Billy 112

    Ms M,

    How can we trust a man who got wrong by six months the date on which he left a job 20 years ago?

    Make a sentence out of these words: clinging power desperately to.

    IrishBill: let me reiterate my earlier comment: So what you’re saying is after it came up on the radar as a serious issue and knowing that it could be used by Labour against him and having filed a statement with the Australian authorities about it he then got the date wrong in an interview with the Herald? An interview which he set up to set the record straight on the matter? Excuse me if I find that very hard to believe.

  113. Tim Ellis 113

    Ms M, the vet came by this morning, at approximately one minute after four o’clock, to euthenaze the horse. It has been dead for five hours. You may find it therapeutic, but you aren’t achieving anything by continuing to flog it.

    There isn’t any evidence Key “lied to the Herald about leaving Elders in 1987”. There is evidence Key made a mistake in referring to his departure year as 1987, which he subsequently corrected as 1988. That departure year did not change the substance of Key’s story–that he wasn’t involved or had any knowledge of the first H-Fee transaction (which was undertaken by Elders Australia, where Key did not work), and that he departed Elders New Zealand three months before the second transaction.

  114. dave 114

    Boooooooooooooooring. The Herald won`t have anything juicy tomorrow. there’s nothing to write about. The smoking gun had no smoke and wouldnt fire.

    Sorry I was wrong. the Herald did have something. to write about. Neutron bomb on Key proves fizzer for the Government

    Bwhahahahahahahahaha.

  115. Carol 115

    Tim, my qestions aren’t to anyone in particular. They are just ones that occur to me, and indicate things that don’t quite add up for me. I think the righties are speculating pretty wildly about this, and drawing conclusions too early.

    There seems to be a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes on both the left and right IMO.

    The Herald breaking of the story yesterday always seemed strange to me, and I wasn’t expecting it to result in any conclusive evidence.

    I am really just waiting to see how things play out.

  116. Ms M 116

    Billy Hmm.

  117. expat 117

    Major major fuckup by the Research Unit – and the NZH journo’s will be as livid about the duplicity as H1 and H2 are about the rank incompetence.

  118. Billy 118

    Ms M,

    I suppose the only sensible conclusion we can come to is that it is part of an international conspiracy of bankers and media-owners. I am pretty sure George Bush is part of it too (although how he found time after master-minding that whole 911 thing I do not know). One thing is for sure, if they could fake a moon landing covering up a 26 year old’s involvement in a major international fraud would be easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy.

    Noticed how the serious lefties have gone quiet and its only the conspiracy nuts who are left trying to run this?

  119. Billy 119

    IrishBill,

    It seems you are kind of on your own on this. Mike Williams has turned his phone off. Pete Hodgson has nothing to say. Neither does Helen. Why I wonder? Maybe because this thing barks like a dog, Phil.

  120. coge 120

    Carol, my guess is the left will defend this story to the hilt, too late for them to back down having thrown their weight behind it. They are still trying to work out an angle to spin it.

    How do Kiwi taxpayers feel about their money being
    wasted on this Melbourne sojourn? Appalled. I’m curious to know the amount it costed us.

  121. Tim Ellis 121

    Carol:

    There were two possible conclusions to what Labour Party was doing, digging up dirt.

    1. Conclusive evidence that John Key is a crook, or;
    2. Conclusive evidence that the Labour Party is prepared to rumour-monger and throw mud at John Key, in a desperate attempt to smear him.

    Both of those options are big, big stories. Mike Williams lured the Herald to Melbourne, purportedly to show the Herald evidence of the first option. The evidence didn’t exist. The smoking gun–John Key’s signature on the dealing slip–did not exist. Mike Williams was unable to uncover anything that the SFO didn’t uncover relating to the complex H Fee. The SFO found that Key had nothing to do with the H Fee. He wasn’t even investigated, he was so remote from it.

    So there was not conclusive evidence that John Key is a crook. Therefore, the other option, given that the Labour Party has been promising for a long time that they would produce evidence of Key’s misdeeds–and find out not to have that evidence–shows the Labour Party as being involved in the most disgusting dirty-tricks campaign that New Zealand has seen. That is a huge story.

  122. Dom 122

    It’s okay – if Key becomes PM he’ll be dethroned by the lie(s) that he’s told that are still waiting to bite him in the bum but that simply haven’t risen the surface yet.

    Karma…it’s a great thing.

  123. vidiot 123

    Not so much a bomb, more a dance.

  124. Roflcopter 124

    If you’re gonna have a smoking gun, make sure you’re holding it the right way around before pulling the trigger.

  125. Janet 125

    There seems to be a bit of an effort by the right to defuse this whole Key issue on this site. Says much – they are really fearful that even if the details are fuzzy Key is tarred with the brush of the nasty money trader mentality that has caused the current crisis. Well this has just reminded people that self-centred, money grabbing, don’t care who or what you hurt attitude is anathema to NZers. But this is the ‘fresh face’ of the National Party.

    Here is a man who was involved in selling NZ Rail to Fay Richwhite, and doesn’t think it is necessary to declare his shareholding when an MP asking questions about the companies involved.

    It is all so unethical. How can anyone justify it?

  126. Carol 126

    Tim, you’re speculating wildly. I’m just asking questions and waiting to se how things play out. IMO, the left doesn’t need any neutron bomb. Even if they get elected, key won’t last long

    The right has spent a lot of time over the last 2 years trying to dig dirt on & smear Labour MPs and NZ 1st. How much money have they spent on that? It’s not surprising that Labour has retaliated with similar tactics.

  127. Billy 127

    It seems the righties have taken over the Standard. Viva la revolucion.

    Get the feeling they’re all just a little bit embarrassed?

  128. the sprout 128

    “if he has nothing to hide, why all the lies?”

    Indeed, you really do have to wonder. Either he:

    1. has a remarkably idiosyncratic selective memory, a bit like Owen Glenn

    2. has a tendency to make shit up on the go, a bit like Jenny Shipley

    3. has something to hide, a bit like Rodney

  129. higherstandard 129

    Careful one of those multiple blog personality nutters like Billy Vlad the impaler might get upset and come after you.

  130. NeillR 130

    It’s okay – if Key becomes PM he’ll be dethroned by the lie(s) that he’s told that are still waiting to bite him in the bum but that simply haven’t risen the surface yet.
    I’d expect this kind of post on Facebook or Bebo but not a site that purports to hold serious discussions about politics. Maybe you’ve come to the wrong place – seriously.

  131. expat 131

    LOL.

    Labour have just burnt all bridges with the Nations media on this one!

    The ‘brains trust’ on the 9th floor have really really fucked this one up!

    Labour trawls for Key ‘smear’

    ‘Not a scintilla of evidence’ linking Key to scandal

    By VERNON SMALL and ELISABETH SEXTON – The Dominion Post | Thursday, 30 October 2008

    ACCUSATIONS: National leader John Key is facing questions about his time at Elders Merchant finance.

    LATEST: Labour has been digging through John Key’s past in an attempt to link him to sham currency deals, in what National is labelling a desperate smear campaign.

  132. Tim Ellis 132

    Janet:

    Here is a man who was involved in selling NZ Rail to Fay Richwhite,

    No, Janet. That is wrong. John Key was currency trading at BT at the time. Clearly a very different unit that worked on SOE privatisation. I don’t know what you do for a job, but surely you understand the concept of different business units within an organisation. Like, let’s say, for example, that there is evidence that Pete Hodgson, Mike Williams, Helen Clark, some Standard posters, Heather Simpson, and much of the Labour Party Research Unit are actively involved in digging up dirt and spreading innuendo about a supposed “smoking gun” linking John Key to corrupt activity. Just because there is evidence of that doesn’t mean that Phil Goff is involved in that activity.

    You’re engaging in some pretty weak guilt-by-association there Janet. By your standard, you must think pretty lowly of Helen Clark’s association with Winston Peters, who has been found by the Privileges Committee to be a liar.

  133. Felix 133

    vto, whe?

    Freudian slip? 😉

  134. dave 134

    Let’s say, for example, that there is evidence that Pete Hodgson, Mike Williams, Helen Clark, some Standard posters, Heather Simpson, and much of the Labour Party Research Unit are actively involved in digging up dirt

    Let’s say that Helen Clark has already come out and said its not a story she is involved in. I believe her.

  135. Daveski 135

    I’m in and out of touch with real world due to various commitments so was interested to see how things panned out this morning.

    What a joke. There are some decent people here on the left who one day will front up and admit what a cock-up this has been. Labour has indulged in high-risk personality politics and seems to have failed. Couple this with their treatment of Owen Glenn and you paint not a particularly pleasant picture of where Labour is at.

    Frankly it is quite sad. Helen clearly has talents, is driven, and manages her team well. But these desperate events so how far Labour has plummeted if this is how it believes it needs to win the election.

    You’d have to think if this is all Labour has got, National will continue to sleep walk to victory. I agree than National has failed to sparkle this campaign but it looks like there will get three years to rebuild while sitting on the treasury benches.

  136. vto 136

    hee hee felix, no. just big fingers hitting the ‘w’ instead of the ‘s’. perhaps i need some filipino fingers…

  137. Matthew Pilott 137

    Mike Williams lured the Herald to Melbourne, purportedly to show the Herald evidence of the first option.

    He lured them there? I heard he went there – I didn’t hear that the Herald went with him. Is that true?

    Therefore, the other option, given that the Labour Party has been promising for a long time that they would produce evidence of Key’s misdeedsand find out not to have that evidenceshows the Labour Party as being involved in the most disgusting dirty-tricks campaign that New Zealand has seen.

    As I understand it, the ‘neutron bomb’ call came from the right. Labour have not been promising any such thing. Do you really think that the media and Labour would sit happily on something substantial? That’s just not credible, Tim. The Dominion Post mentions that Fairfax, along with a govt department in Victoria, investigated the signature, and found it to not be Key’s.

    They considered it worthy of investigation. It turned out that it was not Key’s signature. In your mind, Tim, does that mean it should not have been investigated. Do you feel the same way, for example, about unsolved crimes – that they should not be investigated (ignoring the clear logical flaw in your reasoning)?

    Given the remarkable similarity between Key’s signature and the one on the cheque, it would only be prudent to investigate. Imagine if Labour did not do so, nor Fairfax, Key became PM and then the cheque was uncovered? That would be a disaster, far beyond the National Party.

    Why you consider this investigation to be part of “the most disgusting dirty-tricks campaign that New Zealand has seen” is beyond me, Tim. Just because the cheque was not signed by Key does not mean it should not have been investigated.

    According to you, Tim, every police investigation that does not result in a sentence must also be a dirty tricks campaign against the accused, if that is your criteria.

    I assume that you also think The Herald, Fairfax Newspapers, TV1 and TV3 are all complicit in this dirty-tricks campaign that labour was “involved in”. Off ya high horse, lad. You also might want to check out what a dirty ticks campaign looks like – this ain’t one, and to throw allegations around like that makes you look very naive and very excitable.

  138. higherstandard 138

    Mat

    It had been investigated at length around 20 years ago by the SFO.

    Sturt the head of the SFO at the time was on the radio this morning.

    “John Key was simply one of scores of innocent people interviewed by the SFO in this investigation.”
    There was “not a scintilla of evidence” linking him to anything untoward, Mr Sturt said.

    The Labour party was looking for dirt to smear Key end of story.

    In relation to the H-Fee people have also conveniently forgotten that the government of the time was also criticised for benefitting at the expense of Equiticorp creditors and shareholders by turning a blind eye to the H fee transaction.
    The government was ordered by the courts to pay $268m as its share of liability for the sale of NZ Steel. The judge at the time said the government “unjustly enriched’ itself through the shonky deal.’

    Now who was the government at that time ?

    More to the point can we get this election over and done with and get stuck into planning to do about the current state of NZ’s economy ?

  139. Matthew Pilott 139

    The Labour party was looking for dirt to smear Key end of story.

    If they had found something, then it would still be ‘dirt’ to ‘smear’ him with? Oh, that’s an interesting take. Is that what the police do? I’m not equating teh two, because Labour, the New Zealand Herald, Fairfax, TV1 and TV3 are clearly not the police, but if they found he did something wrong then he deserves to have it brought up. Like Tim, you look very naive and excitable.

    More to the point can we get this election over and done with and get stuck into planning to do about the current state of NZ’s economy ?

    I believe both parties are working towards that, as both parties would want to have a plan, should they win. Unfortunately it’s not as sexy as h-bombs or Monaco! Incidentally, gosh our economy is doing well, compared to our trading partners and other countries. Aren’t we lucky the good Doctor got rid of all that debt.

  140. milo 140

    r0b – absolutely my judgement is biased, No question. And yes I enjoy a good bit of political invective, (as do you). Sometimes I’ll get the better of you, and sometimes you or your friends will get the better of me. But I do try hard not to engage in personal attacks and intellectual dishonesty.

    If you can find cases where I have done so, well I’ll eat my electrons.

  141. higherstandard 141

    “Incidentally, gosh our economy is doing well, compared to our trading partners and other countries.”

    Eh – the PREFU was bad the next update from the RB may be worse we have not performed particularly well in the OECD rating that the PM was looking to improve our position in.

    But kudos for the government for setting up the “Cullen” fund, Kiwisaver and retiring public debt – this is to be applauded.

    On the Elders/Equiticorp issue – you miss my point that if there was anything there it would have been found by the SFO at the time – to suggest that Mike Williams and Labour party staffers would find something that had been missed is laughable – to suggest that they were doing it for reasons that extended much beyond an attempt to smear Key is also naive.

    As I said when this story broke if Key had done anything wrong I would expect him to feel the full force of the law come down on him – but that I doubted there would be anything to it as it had been thoroughly investigated previously.

  142. Hamish,

    thank you for that information..unable respond late evening last, so apols if you inconvenienced.. however.. you wrote:—

    There were two H-Fee’s (or scam transactions). One from the Australian branch of Elders, and one from the branch in New Zealand. The one from New Zealand was after Key had left in 1988, so Key himself was not personally involved.

    Going off the information on the standard’s blog can I take it (datewise) that the enzed-originated scam payment was made 7 September.?

    Further, your answer suggests someone reasonably well-briefed on the context of these dealings. Could you therefore explain what these later proven illegal or unlawful payments were for? What was the deal..? Why two payments etc..

  143. Tim Ellis 143

    Matthew, this was not an unsolved crime. It was a crime where the perpetrators had been convicted, some twenty years earlier. The only piece of slightly interesting material is that John Key’s signature was similar to an Australian executive. Despite the fact that the authorities concluded that Key had absolutely no involvement in either transaction, that the person who received the transaction, the person who organised the the transaction, and the person who investigated the transaction, considered Key to be irrelevant to the transaction–the Labour Party persisted.

    And what did they find? Again, a signature that was similar. Let’s visit fantasy-land for a moment, and pretend that 26 year old John Key, sitting in the forex dealing room at Elders in New Zealand, has the authority to write sixty million dollar cheques on behalf of Elders Australia. Are you with me? Right. Don’t you think that somebody might have noticed Key’s signature on the cheque?

    It wasn’t Key’s signature. The smoking gun didn’t exist. Labour have been going around telling people that there is a smoking gun relating to Key and the H Fee to anybody who will listen. I can tell you for a fact Matthew that a mid-level Labour Party organisation figure, and husband of a Labour Party candidate, told me precisely this a month ago. I’m quite happy to name the person involved, and the date of the conversation, if you challenged me on that.

    This has been a spectacular and humiliating back-fire for the Labour Party Matthew. I don’t doubt that you honestly did believe that the smoking gun would be produced today. It’s easy to say after the fact, but the very idea of a smoking gun was just ludicrous to begin with.

  144. Ianmac 144

    You might expect that John Key was able to enunciate a clear vision of where he would take NZ into the future.
    You would expect that he could explain in succinct terms how he would do that.
    You would expect that his attention to detail, like recollection of dates,would be excellent.
    I know that perception is personal but in the extended interview with Catherine on Nine to Noon this morning, I think he failed on all these factors. I believe that Catherine on our behalf, was like Audrey Young and a little uneasy about his likely performance as our future PM, on the grounds of lack of transparency.
    This to me is the guts of the doubts leading to the need to look under the rocks. Would it have been necessary had it been on Don Brash’s integrity? Most unlikely.

  145. Matthew Pilott 145

    Hi Tim, it’s me, really. The website keeps logging me out and not letting me back in under my registered name.

    There were some inconsistencies in Key’s story, which I think made it sensible to investigate. That they did not turn up anything serious does not mean they should not have been investigated.

    I don’t doubt that you honestly did believe that the smoking gun would be produced today.

    Really Tim? You don’t doubt I genuinely believe something I have never implied, said or even mentioned? Are we still talking about that fantasy-land of yours? What was I talking about earlier – naive and excitable? The second is really showing through today. If I thought htere was something it would be because The Herald implied as such, not for any other reason.

    Let’s visit fantasy-land for a moment, and pretend that 26 year old John Key, sitting in the forex dealing room at Elders in New Zealand, has the authority to write sixty million dollar cheques on behalf of Elders Australia. Are you with me? Right

    Ah, in a previous job I was in I had authority for transfer payments up to $NZ30m. I’m not talking myself up – it was not an important, powerful or senior role by any stretch of the imagination – I’m just pointing out that it’s fantasyland for you only through ignorance and your tendency to assume you know the Facts.

    So the smoking gun didn’t exist. Well and good – you only find that out by looking for it, don’t you think?

    HS, I can only gather you don’t understand what a smear is, along with Tim. If Key had dome something wrong, and this was proven, it would not be a smear. Genuine question: Which of the following two is a smear?

    1 – Republican activists trying to paint Obama as a terrorist and a muslim

    2 – Hollow Men accusations leading to the fall of Don Brash

    I’m tending to agree with you and Tim, in that it seems odd that Labour think there was something the SFO missed that they could pick up. But in saying that, he did deny any involvement and say he was gone by the time it all went down, yet actually was at Elders, apparently, when bad stuff happened. Therefore, it is something worthy of looking into. And it’s still not a smear.

  146. Lew 146

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

    I can’t believe anyone gives this any credence. When the boss of the Serious Fraud Office says there’s no culpability, there’s no damned culpability.

    And it’s a particularly bizarre set of circumstances to believe the SFO when it comes to Winston and not when it comes to John.

    L

  147. r0b 147

    The one re whether any authors here are parliamentary etc staffers is worthy. I have wondered this myself given the amount of detailed info and links … r0b, you make such posts and obviously care a great deal about your politics, which is all good. What you think? Feel free to ignore as it is a little intrusive given the anon nature of this site.

    vto, usually I wouldn’t confirm or deny anything about myself – I like a world where personal details don’t matter, and it’s about the quality of the arguments. But FYI I am not a staffer or employed politically in any way, and I don’t live or work in Wellington. I’m just a random member of the Labour Party.

  148. Hi All,

    to my hearing this morning JK said “absolutely not” to plunket’s question of his involvement in the aforementioned scam dealings. which is one answer – and way of answering – that question. In so doing it is also issue closed, he would wish. as indeed others here would, too.

    let us take it to be so on the face of it. Though not without facing the follow-up. The mention and matter of a “smear”. What is the “smear”? His word, and somewhat slavishly followed by a number of commenters on this blog. okay, all are entitled to their opinion, wheresoever it comes from. BUT are they talking about the same thing..?

    SMEAR then, what is the smear.? And why the assertion of it? so soon after such an emphatic denial.?

    Is it projecting JK-style – front foot and all that (which to a batsmen lessens the odds of correctly defending his wicket or scoring) – or otherwise political and manipulating belief around something else. Distracting.? For instance.

    And if so, why? What on earth could be fraught about recalling the circumstances – difficulties faced for working in that scam environment. impacts upon a fellow, albeit not personally involved in the subject which was more than likely the topic of significant conversation. Around today’s equivalent of the water-cooler. Face it, who among such folk would want to be ignorant of such matters otherwise.?

    Believe you me a very good question.

    Not answered at all by today’s politician. Whose manner and denial stamps him ABOVE questioning and common concerns. An autocrat.

    How do kiwis get along with guys in office who are anything but the friendly vote-catching characters they have been posterizing..

  149. Tim Ellis 149

    Matthew, I apologise for saying you believed that a smoking gun would be produced today. I confused somebody else’s post as coming from you.

    So the smoking gun didn’t exist. Well and good – you only find that out by looking for it, don’t you think?

    Matthew, several Labour Party figures have been spreading the rumour for some time that the smoking gun did exist, and that it would be released at an appropriate time. That exercise was not an attempt to clarify a few minor inconsistencies in John Key’s previous public statements. It was deliberately designed to smear John Key with the suggestion that he was involved in a major fraud. SP bought into that smear yesterday with this very post. You will note I broke down SP’s argument with the following:

    The H-fee explained

    Now, let’s say you think there might be a smoking gun. Is it a smear to tell everyone that you have a smoking gun, when you don’t, hoping that just by saying there is one, that there’s a greater chance that if there is such a thing, it will be produced? I think so. And that’s what the Labour Party did.

    The Labour Party were looking for information to discredit John Key. It backfired.

  150. Matthew Pilott 150

    Tim, no worries there. From what I can see, Labour thought what they had was very serious. I can understand why, looking at the signatures in question. I’d imagine that is what anyone who has been mentioning this was speaking about. That was proven to be wrong, and I suspect that they won’t be mentioning it again – it’s still not a smear – discrediting someone through actions they knowingly took, and then attempted to conceal would not constitute a smear in any sense. They were wrong about the information, though, and it didn’t help their cause.

  151. milo 151

    vto – I agree with r0b. I don’t think the identify of the authors important, it’s the ideas that matter.

    (Actually, I’m really Dick Cheney, and posting here is what I do to relax)

  152. Pascal's bookie 152

    “(Actually, I’m really Dick Cheney, and posting here is what I do to relax)”

    It’s all good fun till someone gets shot in the face.

  153. Vlad the Impaler 153

    As predicted, the NZ Herald ( read: National’s Own Propaganda Paper) repressed the facts and told only half the story.

    Why did the Herald fail to mention the name of the executive whom they claim signed the cheque? If it was Ken Jarrat why not say so and if, as the Herald seems to be claiming, the signature was Ken Jarrat’s, why does he sign JK and not KJ?

    Not over for me. My suspicions were aroused when Key started telling lies
    about the dates he worked at Elders. Suspicions deepened when the Herald failed to name the alleged executive who signed the cheque. Was it because people would ask, why would this person sign his initials backward as in J K ( John Key) not K J ( Kenneth Jarrat)

    We only have the Herald version of events. Is that enough for you?

  154. Tim Ellis 154

    Good one Vlad. It wasn’t Jarrett’s signature. You must be the only person in New Zealand who still believes it is Key’s signature.

  155. No it wasnt Ken Jarrats signature on the cheque as we learnt from Stuff today. It was according to these infamous media whores…. Maxwell Nicolls.

    It is no surprise then the Herald failed to tell us this. Who in their right mind would believe such a fallacy? What a laugh.

    And dont give me that old line about the Serious Fraud Office or Charles Sturt either. Charles Sturt is a well known National-ACT Party stooge. Anyone who knows anything about the Winebox knows that Charles Sturt claimed to have read tens of thousands of pages involving tax fraud in about half an hour, a tax fraud so complex not even experienced accountants could follow it. If Charles Sturt says John Key was investigated and cleared then you can guarantee he was not.

  156. Ianmac 156

    As I said elsewhere the column by Eugene Bingham on the Herald yesterday 2 Nov, is no longer on-line as far as I can see.
    Its removal from the menu Election 08 after a day seems a bit odd.
    But still have it. Check signature detail:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10540463&pnum=0

  157. Ok and I say the initialled signature is John Keys. The J is the same as is the strange little hill in the bottom of the K.

    The initials definitely are not MN, they are JK.

    I do not trust John Key. I believe that he would lie and lie about this, just as he lied and lied about the shares he had in NZ Rail to parliament and to the press until he was caught red-handed by the TVNZ reporter who had the details of his 100,000 shares in her hand.

    The story about the date of the dinner he also fabricated, as his credit card being used, and the Elder’s employment dates he gave to the media.

    He was involved up to his sleazy neck, and if nobody else can see this then they have not come across many bad liars.

  158. paw prick 158

    Kiwida
    are you serious? or just stupid,
    maybe your time would be better spent looking into Shane jones and cash for passports, or how much HC knew about winston.
    this one is a non event

    [lprent: I’m flagging you as a probable flamer troll from your comments. Nothing said of any major import, looks like it comes out of a troll phrasebook, and a distinct lack of thought. Look at Policy and lift your standard.]

  159. te ururoa 159

    Hey paw prick!! The guy is right. The signature is the same as Key. See for your self. You want the issue to die. Yeah I can see why, man. Your party would not do to well if the rest of the country woke up to your man being a thief.

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Hearing victims/survivors of crime
    A new survey is allowing victims/survivors of crime to be heard, in their own words, about how our broken criminal justice system can be fixed, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    2 days ago
  • Joint effort on organised crime in the Pacific
    New Zealand Police are to work more closely with their counterparts from Australia, Tonga and Fiji in a multinational effort to tackle organised crime. Police Minister Stuart Nash says an agreement signed today in Sydney by the New Zealand Commissioner ...
    3 days ago
  • Next phase in fisheries management reform
    Next phase in fisheries management reform The next phase of reform of the fisheries management system has been launched with a call for public input into new rules for the commercial industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash has released a ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Views sought on blue cod fishing rules
    Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash is encouraging people to have their say on proposed changes to rules controlling the blue cod fishery. Proposed changes to regulations would apply to both recreational and commercial fishing. They were flagged in the Blue Cod ...
    3 weeks ago