What would you have done, Prime Minister?

Written By: - Date published: 11:36 pm, June 23rd, 2010 - 33 comments
Categories: national/act government - Tags:

A very strange statement from Timaru financier Allan Hubbard in this story from the Herald after his company had been put into statutory liquidation by Justice Minister Simon Power:

Power said on Sunday there was not adequate documentation of loans made on behalf of 407 investors who were owed NZ$98 million.

“I think if Mr Key, who knows me, was in New Zealand, he wouldn’t have done that,” Hubbard told Radio New Zealand.

Hubbard thinks  because Prime Minister Key knows him personally he would have overruled Simon Power, a member of Key’s cabinet exercising his statutory duty,  in Hubbard’s favour.

That was  after the Herald reported this from the Serious Fraud Office:

Earlier today, Serious Fraud Office director Adam Feeley says SFO staff have visited the offices of Allan Hubbard’s Aorangi Securities in Timaru and are satisfied an investigation into suspected serious or complex fraud is necessary.

Feeley said the SFO had started an investigation after careful consideration of information received from the Registrar of Companies.

“Based on the information we received from the earlier report, we were satisfied that, not only was it in the public interest to commence an inquiry, but that the inquiry should be conducted under Part 2 of the SFO Act – that is, it should be an investigation of suspected offences involving serious or complex fraud,” said Feeley.

John Key certainly knows the finance world inside out. But serious fraud is a serious matter. So is the publicly stated perception by a highly influential financier that the Prime Minister would corrupt the process of justice in his favour.

It’s not a good look.

33 comments on “What would you have done, Prime Minister? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. gingercrush 1
    23 June 2010 at 11:48 pm

    Smile and Wave and I would have done but I never said I had but I can’t decide if I may and I will delay my decision and I’ll be happy with that decision but I won’t actually make a decision but I did not say that, well I might have said that and I’m all confused but I sure can smile and wave

    OK so I can’t do satire or anything like that but this post is screaming out for one of those. And I usually hate the whole “OMG John Key smiles and waves and do nothing Key”, but in this case it does seem appropriate.

  2. tsmithfield 2
    24 June 2010 at 6:25 am

    “John Key certainly knows the finance world inside out. But serious fraud is a serious matter. So is the publicly stated perception by a highly influential financier that the Prime Minister would corrupt the process of justice in his favour. ”

    John, this is a very dumb post. Sorry. Just because someone has an opinion about someone-else doesn’t make it evidence of anything.

    • IrishBill 2.1
      24 June 2010 at 6:52 am

      Be civil or you’ll get banned again. Hubbard clearly said John Key would have sorted the problem if he had been in NZ. Why do you think he would say such a thing?

      • joe bloggs 2.1.1
        24 June 2010 at 1:48 pm

        please clarify – where does Hubbard “clearly say” that Key would have sorted this out?

        In the piece that’s quoted Hubbard speculates on what Key would not have done. That’s all.

  3. tsmithfield 3
    24 June 2010 at 7:12 am

    Irish, if we accept that the Serious Fraud office has a case, and at the very least Hubbard has been making some serious errors of judgement with respect to his finances. If he is making errors of judgement with respect to his financial management, might he not also be making errors of judgement about what action others might take? Who knows, he might have said exactly the same thing about the SFO before they moved in. As I said, just because he has an opinion, it doesn’t prove anything.

    • IrishBill 3.1
      24 June 2010 at 7:35 am

      No it doesn’t prove anything but it is an unusual enough assumption that it would be good to know what basis it was made on.

  4. tsmithfield 4
    24 June 2010 at 7:40 am

    So far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence of Key trying to intervene in this situation. Therefore, Hubbard’s opinion seems fairly baseless. Perhaps he thought that since Key seemed a nice guy and had a chat with him one day he would also call the dogs off in this sort of situation. However, his opinion seems to be completely incorrect judging by the course of events thus far.

    • snoozer 4.1
      24 June 2010 at 9:48 am

      “So far as I am aware there is absolutely no evidence of Key trying to intervene in this situation. ”

      apart from one of the major palyers saying he would.

      “Perhaps he thought that since Key seemed a nice guy and had a chat with him one day he would also call the dogs off in this sort of situation”

      I love your ability to just invent actual events if it suits your purpose, argue from them, and conclude that you are right. Kind of the Right’s method in microcosm.

  5. Mark 5
    24 June 2010 at 8:35 am

    John Key was quoted yesterday in the Herald as saying he supported his ministers actions, that he was aware last week what was going to happen.
    End of story.

    • vto 5.1
      24 June 2010 at 9:07 am

      he has to say that doesn’t he. what else would he say Mark?

      … story just begun in fact …

  6. vto 6
    24 June 2010 at 9:06 am

    Hubbard, in saying that, exposes how things work at times, indeed.

    You may want to then extrapolate that to Central Plains Water, Hubbards stake in that and many other schemes, Ecan theft, Water Conservation Order deletion and the meeting late last year (edit: year before) at the Sudima Hotel at Christchurch Airport between Smith and Carter and irrigator reps and stakeholders such as Hubbard.

    This is exactly what I have been getting at recently. There has been a well planned assault on water resources for the purposes of dairying in Canterbury. That plan is currently being executed.

    Hubbard has let the cat out of the bag.

  7. jcuknz 7
    24 June 2010 at 9:35 am

    Another field day for the conspiracy theorists ?

    • vto 7.1
      24 June 2010 at 9:40 am

      No jcuknz.

      Follow the news. Follow the goings-on. Follow the resource consents. Follow the money. Follow the people. It is so bloody clear. I would love to give David Carter some truth serum and see what spews forth from his twitching tongue.

    • the pinkpostman 7.2
      24 June 2010 at 1:09 pm

      I’m not sure .its all a mystery to me .I realise Hubard has given millions to charity ,but I have difficulty to understand how a man makes 100s of millions of dollars. Perhaps one of our subscribers in the know will inform me.
      Because I have always believed that whilst one is hard at work they do not have time to make money. I also believe that that sort of money is made by either screwing the workers or with a well concealed fiddle.

      ,

  8. tsmithfield 8
    24 June 2010 at 9:48 am

    It must be a really slow news day at the standard for this item to be gaining any traction at all.

    It might be mildly interesting if there was a “because” that could be pointed to.

    E.g. “I think if Mr Key, who knows me, was in New Zealand, he wouldn’t have done that.” Hubbard was able to say this because Key had stepped in previously for him in similar situations such as this instance when Key…

    However, there is no “because” to back up the speculation from Hubbard. The evidence is quite the contrary in that the government is taking action and there is no indication from Key that he will intervene. So there is absolutely no story here. Period.

    • vto 8.1
      24 June 2010 at 10:10 am

      So tsmithfield you think Hubbard is simply day-dreaming when he expresses this? That he has perhaps lost his marbles? That is the basis of your post.

      Perhaps Hubbard expresses that opinion because he has very reasonable cause to believe that is the case. And he has not lost his marbles at all.

      So which is it – lost his marbles? Or not?

  9. tsmithfield 9
    24 June 2010 at 10:21 am

    The problem is vto, that Hubbard could have said anything and I guess you would believe it, given your earlier comments:

    For instance, “I think if Key, who knows me, was in New Zealand, he would wipe my bum for me if I needed a carer.”

    Without any evidence, statements are meaningless, especially when the evidence goes completely the other way. Hubbard might strongly believe that Key wouldn’t have taken this action. However, there is no evidence at all to back up this belief.

    Show some evidence that Key has been trying to interfere in the process at the moment to help Hubbard out. Then there might be a story. As it stands the government is taking action against Hubbard. I am sure that Key is very sad that Hubbard has ended up in this situation, as many probably are. However, there is absolutely no evidence that any personal feelings he has about this situation is having any effect on the process.

    All that is happening here is that Key is being smeared without any evidence to back it up at all.

    • vto 9.1
      24 June 2010 at 10:28 am

      You didn’t answer the question tsmithfield.

      And I did provide evidence as to why Hubbard may have such a belief that Key may exercise some influence.

      You say “Show some evidence that Key has been trying to interfere in the process at the moment to help Hubbard out.”. But that is not the evidence needed, nor the proposition to be proved. It is evidence around why Hubbard may have such a belief.

      So I ask you again, slightly differently to make it a little easier – Is Hubbard lying when he expresses this belief? Or not?

      • Bored 9.1.1
        24 June 2010 at 10:53 am

        VTO, dont expect answers from TS, especially about who is losing their marbles. You do very well pointing out the complicity of Hubbard and the Nats in what has become the Great Canterbury water larceny.

    • Pascal's bookie 9.2
      24 June 2010 at 10:33 am

      nah. What’s being done is people are wondering why Hubbard might say such a thing, given that it’s a fairly strange thing to say.

      Do you think that Hubbard would say such a thing without reason/ Do you really think that Hubbard would think that just because he had a nice chat with Key, then that would be enough to make him believe this?

      Hubbard could well be wrong in his belief, but that doesn’t explain it. Something though, must. What that something is, is what people are wondering.

    • Armchair Critic 9.3
      24 June 2010 at 11:05 am

      In short, there’s nothing to see here, move on, ts? Yeah right, Mr Hubbard just gave a quick glimpse of how things really work in Canterbury. There is no lack of evidence, this is yet another piece of evidence to back up the circumstantial evidence we have had over the last six months or so.

  10. Tigger 10
    24 June 2010 at 10:32 am

    Key has cultivated this pretence of availability when he’s not. It’s celebrity culture, people expect him to be their friend or, if he is known to them, intercede for them even inappropriate.

  11. freedom 11
    24 June 2010 at 10:36 am

    like most of you, i only believe my friends will help in a particular circumstance because they have done so in the past.

  12. vto 12
    24 June 2010 at 10:43 am

    In Canterbury, National Party people, farming leaders, and local finance people (PGGW, Kerr, SCF, Hubbard) are as thick as thieves.

    Only a fool thinks otherwise.

    • tsmithfield 12.1
      24 June 2010 at 12:09 pm

      The only “evidence” I see here to back up the “claims” by Hubbard is more speculation.

      And to answer VTO, yes it wouldn’t surprise me if Hubbard is losing his marbles. Happens to old people all the time. Ever heard of dementia?

      • vto 12.1.1
        24 June 2010 at 12:18 pm

        Ok, good for you.

        Regarding “speculation” you clearly have a deficient knowledge of events that are known to have occurred already and a further deficiency around the Canterbury region and its various ‘cultures’.

        You’re entitled to your opinion but in my opinion in aint worth a speck of loess on this issue.

        • tsmithfield 12.1.1.1
          24 June 2010 at 12:33 pm

          Actually I live in Christchurch. From what I have seen (letters to the editor, local radio talkback etc) most people were sick to death of ECAN and glad to see them go. They didn’t get the nickname “ecan’t” for nothing.

          The problem you have with respect to Key is that you are implying very serious allegations against Key. Given such substantial allegations, I would expect to see substantial evidence. What has been put forward is a million miles from that.

  13. Jum 13
    24 June 2010 at 10:46 am

    A comment suggested John Key knows the finance world inside out. If that is the case he would have warned NZ when he became an MP and had House privilege that we were to be to be hit by a recession, because that is the reason I suspect that he came back to NZ to escape the political fallout that would have attached itself to him with his speculative help on gambling with NZ’s dollar and the many diverse ways he made his millions of paper money from paper creativity. He knew very well that we were in trouble because of American financial activities and his American contacts and intended to cynically use that knowledge to his advantage to gain power in NZ.

    If he did not know any of this then he is lying about his financial acumen and has had to rely on the fact that Clark and Cullen had built up reserves to pay down debt and protect New Zealanders from a worse recession.

    Which is it JKeyll? What are you hide-ing from us?

    • Damian 13.1
      24 June 2010 at 1:05 pm

      This is absurd. Reality is not a stick that you can put into a bowl of spinning sugar-assumptions. It’s not a candyfloss fantasy-land, as much as you may want it to be.

    • joe bloggs 13.2
      24 June 2010 at 5:37 pm

      Are you channelling Phil U after a big weekend?

      And if Key were black and female … then he’d be Ella Fitzgerald…
      And if he were short, bald and heavyset … then he’d be Rodney Hide…
      And if he knew more about quantum physics than Einstein … then he’d be Stephen Hawkings…

      Absurd doesn’t scratch the surface of your conspiracy theories

  14. randal 14
    24 June 2010 at 11:49 am

    HE WOULD HAVE FIRST KIcKED THE TYRES.
    then made him an offer he couldnt understand but with which he would be the loser.

  15. Jum 15
    25 June 2010 at 8:48 am

    Damian and Joe Bloggs (Captcha you are talking ‘garbages’)

    The fact remains. Either Key is the great moneyman who understands the financial world or he doesn’t. He either knew about the coming American blowout because he understood the financial world he was moving in or he didn’t know which means he is the great pretender telling NZers that he can lead them through the mire and that would be a lie. Which do you prefer? He is a liar? He doesn’t know about the financial world? He did know that New Zealand was going to be hit by a recession that his fellow moneytraders helped cause? Which?

    Another fact; in Bubble Man by Peter Hartcher “the US abandoned the gold bullion standard in 1971, its dollar has not been backed by any precious metal but rests on a common faith that the greenback is something more than a piece of paper.” Money is created, trillions of it and we are expected to trust that when we need to withdraw it, the money will be there for us.

    Quote from Jim Anderton’s budget speech 2010
    “I remember he helped people make a pot of money speculating against the New Zealand dollar in the 1980s, at a cost to New Zealand of $700 million. Guess what? At the same time, New Zealand’s increasing rate of income inequality became one of the worst in the OECD.”