When the Tranzrail shares came to light, Key was asked whether he had any other undisclosed shares entailing a conflict of interest. He said he didn’t. That was not true.
National Party Leader John Key failed to disclose his conflict of interest arising from his share holding in Fletcher Challenge Forests while using his privileges as an MP to obtain information and make public statements relevant to that company’s industry and its major contractual relationships with Tranzrail.
Research I conducted exclusively for The Standard shows Mr Key owned 40,000 F-class shares and 60,000 S-class shares in Fletcher Challenge Forests (which is now called Tenon) when he became an MP after the 2002 election. He owned these shares in his own name, not in a trust.
Standing Order 166 states that “a member must, before participating in the consideration of any item of business, declare any financial interest that the member has in that business.” In other words, conflicts of interest must be disclosed. It was violating this rule that got Key into trouble over his Tranzrail shares. And it is this rule that he has broken again by failing to reveal his FCF shares when talking issues that related to FCF’s share price.
Every time Key had a conflict of interest with Tranzrail he also had one with Fletcher Challenge Fletcher. FCF had a contract with Tranzrail for moving timber and pulp around its logging sites, milling operations, and to ports. Because of this major contractual arrangement, what happened to Tranzrail also affected FCF and vice versa (FCF needed that lease of Tranzrail stock to move its timber, the contract was a major revenue source for Tranzrail).
FCF was also part of the Rail Freight Action Group, which was campaigning for the Government to buy the rails off Tranzrail. FCF believed such a deal would improve rail services for its logging, boosting its profitability, and, thereby, its return to shareholders. Key asked a number of questions in his capacity on the potential for a government deal with Tranzrail.
The information Key sought by asking questions about the potential sale of Tranzrail could have been used by him to make a gain on both his Tranzrail and his FCF shares. His shares in FCF alone meant Key had an interest in Tranzrail’s ownership. This means each one of Key’s statements and the questions he asked as an MP relating to Tranzrail’s ownership also created a conflict of interest in relation his FCF shares, which he failed to disclose.
In March 2003, Key spoke against a Bill that removed the cap of $6,000 on redundancy payments, at the same time Fletcher Challenge Forests was laying off workers at two mills and planning further redundancies. Key failed to disclose his conflict of interest.
Key also spoke on the Te Uri o Hau Claims Settlement Bill. This Bill gave Te Uri o Hau ownership over Pouto forest and 45% of Mangawhai forest in Northland. The logging rights to these forests may have been held by FCF (FCF logged many forests in the region but I’m still trying to get the documentation to confirm they logged Pouto and Mangawhai). Here’s the exchange from Hansard, October 2, 2002:
Key: Jim Peters declared his ancestry and his conflict of interest, if there is any, in this settlement process. I am happy to declare I have none….
An Hon. Member: The member is absolutely positive?
JOHN KEY: I am absolutely positive of that.
Ron Mark: You don’t know what skeleton is in your wardrobe.
If FCF was logging those forests, Key had a very real conflict of interest. By denying it, he will have misled Parliament, a serious offence.
Key was a shareholder in FCF during each of these incidents. Each of these failures to disclose his conflict of interest is a breach of standing orders and could be grounds for Key to be brought before the Privileges Committee in the next term of Parliament.
Key did not sell his Fletcher Challenge Forests shares until June 2003, the same time as he sold his Tranzrail shares. He sold them in four parcels, on the 11th, 12, and 16th of June, for total of around $105,000 [share price]. As Key sold both his Tranzrail and FCF holdings at the same time, it may be that he sold his entire New Zealand share portfolio at this time This matches with his statement on Sunrise that he hasn’t owned any New Zealand shares since 2003. Why he chose to sell then and what other companies he held, we don’t know.
Key may have had other undisclosed conflicts of interest arising from shareholdings in other companies as well as Tranzrail and Fletcher Challenge Forests. My research was not, and could not be, a search of all New Zealand registered companies’ registers during the relevant period; only eight registers were examined. The fact that this search of just eight potentially interesting companies turned up another conflict of interest (and more information, which I will be releasing in due course) suggests that there is more waiting to be uncovered.
Key failed, on multiple occasions, to reveal his shares in Fletcher Challenge Forests while using his privileges as an MP to ask questions that were pertinent to the value of those shares. And he misled the public, just four weeks ago, when he claimed he had no more skeletons in his closet.
I have documentary proof of Key’s shareholdings that I am happy to forward to journos but nothing that can be publicly released until Tenon gives me a copy of the share register, under s118 of the Companies Act they have five working days from the time of my request to provide it.
Let’s guess
No journos will be interested. The media will not pick it up. No one will hold Key to account.
Why am I not surprised?
What a scumbag.
Can we ship him off to the failed-nat-leaders graveyard with all the others now please?
Janet,
You’d be surprised.
TV 3 has some pretty spot on journalists very interested in John Key.
The only way we will really know whether Key has behaved appropriately as an MP who holds shares is if he releases a list of what companies he held shares in during 2002/2003. He clearly has side stepped questions from numerous journalists on the issue of ownership - we should expect more from a man who would be our PM. Great work Steve - shows what some commitment can achieve.
I don’t expect you’ll get any real traction on this from the MSM. It’s them who should be finding this stuff out in the first place, but they’d rather parrot party lines. Shameful.
Great piece Steve.
I will be able to say to other lay people (as I am a person unskilled in Shares etc):
John Key had shares in Fletcher Challenge Forestry.
John Key asked questions in the House regarding said Forestry.
John Key did not declare a conflict of interest.
He said in the House (Hansard ) that he had no such interests.
This could be a case for “misleading the House” and a job for a (non-partisan) Privileges Committee.
(Ironic this would be given the Peters case.)
Steve: Have I got the simpler version about right for we ignorant ones?
“Research I conducted exclusively for The Standard shows ” lol - you take yourself far too seriously pierson.
I think you need to do much better than this as its all about sound bites at this stage of the campaign and “five headed monster” has much more impact than 14 paragraphs of unproven waffle.
Ianmac,
I wish you would not call yourself ignorant. You are curious and willing to learn and that makes you a hell of a lot smarter and less ignorant than some of the truly stupendously ignoramusses thinking they know it all trolls. That is what real ignorance looks like.
Ok mate?
mike, where’s the unproven stuff?
All I can see that you could be referring to is the stuff concerning Pouto and Mangawhai forests. The rest of it is all there in black and white.
Then again, I did read the whole post…
True Felix nothing un-proven more just completely irrelevant, banging on about Key having shares in NZ companies seems to be a bit of a weird side show unless you believe that he’s gone into parliament only to manipulate the share price of certain companies.
What next the Green party only wants insulation in houses because they have a pecuniary interest ?
Clinton is also starting to having worrying Winstonesque delusions of self grandeur.
Ianmac, that’s the nub of it. except “He said in the House (Hansard ) that he had no such interests” depends on who had the contract for felling those forests. I’ll be able to prove that one way or the other on Tuesday.
Mike. what’s unproven? Are you saying he didn’t hold the shares? I’ve sent my proof on to several journos so far.
I included this phrase “Research I conducted exclusively for The Standard ” because we know what the line from mike and HS would be otherwise ‘who got you this info, who are you working for?’ etc… now it’s a delusions of grandeur line…they’re imaginative, i’ll give them that.
HS. as with the Peters affair or anything of this ilk, it’s the conflict of interest that matters, not whether that conflict was exploited. You know that, conflicts of interest come up in your work too,
hs,
By that logic if I walk to the shops this avo to buy some beer (hypothetical but quite likely) and on my way there I decide to kick the neighbour’s cat (less likely) then you’d say the cat-kicking was largely irrelevant because I wasn’t really on a cat-kicking mission.
(oh, and when I get home if the neighbour says “did you kick my cat?” and I say “no” then that’s another matter.)
Don’t you have anything better to do? Seems quite pathetic to me.
Edward Gay of the NZ Herald would rather write articles like “John Key voted best nappy changer and student homestay host” (on Oct 25, 2008) than write about John Key’s undisclosed shares and insider trading.
Sarah. that’s about the weakest response i can think of.
felix. that’s a great analogy.
Felix with a name such as yours the act of feline abuse would be an outrage.
My take on the share thing with Key is he had large numbers of shares in a trust and he asked questions in the house as part of his job as an MP not to gain any advantage personally.
And I take the polar opposite view to Clinton - I don’t think it is the perceived conflict of interest that matters it is whether it was exploited - and by the way when was kicking cats the same as owning shares ?
Well done Steve!
My bet is that Key’s backers will be getting cold feet by now. This stuff should clinch it.
The MSM cannot ignore this if Labour adds it to the ‘lack of trust in John line’.
What has Key got to offer? RB has guaranteed depositors. Now done a securities swap with the commercial banks that keeps them in business, which is also a lot better than a wholesale guarantee for NZ workers who will ultimately pay the bill for any bank collapse. Cullen has the track record of a safe pair of hands for business.
The big powers governments everywhere are pulling their Keynesian texts off the shelf and throwing their Friedmans and Hayeks into the bin to save the ’system’.
What’s more the money boys know that when workers begin to wake up to the huge con job perpetrated on them by the ’system’ they are going to need worker-friendly governments to try to keep the lid on our outrage.
That aging swinger Peter Dunne has just got engaged to National again and has rejected Labour as partner. Will anyone on the left be sad? I doubt it - means one less impediment to the Greens having a greater influence. I must say that the one time I was embarrassed by the presentation by a Minister at a public event in recent years was when the speaker was Peter Dunne. Boring and uninspiring.
I wonder if he will be lobbying for the role of speaker at some stage?
hs. they were owned in his name. i’ll edit the post to make that clear.
not revealing a conflict of interest is a violation of standing orders and can get an mp before the privileges committee. It was wrong when he failed to declare his conflict of interest on Tranzrail, and worse when he lied about it, and it is wrong that he failed to declare his conflict of interest on Fletcher Challenge Forest and lied about it
Not really SP. A simple question: have you ever looked into Helen Clark’s background at anywhere near the extent that you’ve looked into Key’s?
The bias of this blog is unbelievable. Any self-respecting journo would have to be mad to take this post seriously, especially since Clinton’s input in anything but discriminating Key is minimal.
[lprent: Read No - you must.... I also notice that Tumeke has us at number 2 these days. Guess we must be doing something that the readers and commentators like. Of course that isn't hard, getting rid of the mindless and un-amusing trolls is probably sufficient. But personally I blame it all on the quality of the posts and the discussion. I'm not sure that you help much.
Incidentally, also read the policy about attacking the site or posters. You're heading towards a ban]
SP - You go for it - I find this little story about as compelling as those of Wishart and his ilk.
Janet Peter Dunne would be a cak speaker - I’d be happy with perhaps Brownlee or Cullen ? Both have an excellent knowledge of the rules of the house and a suitable amount of gravitas for the position unfortunately we haven’t had a good speaker for a long, long time. I think it’s a position that with the right person there could have a very positive effect on parliament and the publics perception.
Sarah, this is not a research blog, it is a pro-Left, anti-Right political blog and we’ll write about what we choose.
When I saw Key lying about his Tranzrail shares, I wondered if there was more to it. So, I compiled a list of 10 potentially interesting companies and when I was up in AUckland I exmained the registers of 8 of them for the eyars 2002-2003… total serach time, 4 hours… then I spent a day or two researching and writing this post based on what I found.
It is Key’s fault that he didn’t reveal his conflicts of interest on Tranzrail and Fletcher Challenge Forests, it is his instinct to lie got them uncovered.
I’m not really sure you’d want a speaker who’d spend all their time mocking one side of the house (that’s Brownlee OR Cullen).
How ’bout Tizzard? Give her something to do.
Chris
I dunno - I reckon Cullen and Brownlee would take the job pretty seriously - I’d like a strong speaker in there with some sort of authority to compel people to actually answer questions in the house and their knowledge of standing orders would be as good if not better than virtually anyone.
Don’t even joke about Tizzard being speaker - I think that people on both sides would see Tizzard being given the speakers position as a sign to abandon all hope.
Clinton - I totally understand that, but the problem is that the bias of this blog hurts its credibility. If you were to say, lose the double standards and the useless dio-tribes, then the blog would have a greater impact.
[lprent: Read No - you must.... I also notice that Tumeke has us at number 2 these days. Guess we must be doing something that the readers and commentators like. Of course that isn't hard, getting rid of the mindless and un-amusing trolls is probably sufficient. But personally I blame it all on the quality of the posts and the discussion. I'm not sure that you help much.
Incidentally, also read the policy about attacking the site or posters. You're heading towards a ban]
John Key got a pretty easy ride on Agenda and Eye to Eye this morning. Jane Clifton in the Listener says he is text buddies with a lot of journos. None of them will be wanting to risk that chumminess.
“Sarah, this is not a research blog, it is a pro-Left, anti-Right political blog and we’ll write about what we choose.”
And there’s the problem with politics - any thing the other side does will be demonised and disregarded
whether it makes sense or not.
Ka pai Steve, stirling job - Is going up before the privilages committee to hold him accountable the only action possible or are further options availiable?
Janet - I actully though that Willie Jackson did a pretty good job (some might think otherwise), he is the only interveiwer that I’ve seen in this campaign willing to ask the hard questions, he didn’t just sit there listening to the usual BS being spun and he spoke over the top of Key when the spin started (and I’m not even a fan of Jacksons).
Akldnut:
Surely the Court of Public Opinion will decide the importance of telling lies and lack of disclosure. I have no doubt John Key will have got wind of this post:
So what would John’s defence be when confronted?
I didn’t know that I had shares. (Shades of Winston?) It was left to my broker.
It was a long time ago when I was new.
We have far more important things to worry about in the World.
I didn’t know the (gun was loaded oops) rules of disclosure.
And……….
Nice research,I was watching agenda and key gets pampered by the “political commentators” he did slip up mentioning about the super fund being invested into nz with such things as Road Tolls. I was watching TVNZ on demand and they cut the dam interview where he was talking about rogernomics not sure what else I missed..
Nobody cares about the shares anymore, Steve. They`re more concerned about whether the Maori Party will join UF/ National/ Act in govt.
Even if Key is asked a mild question about this he will say sorry and everyone will say what a nice guy for apologising.
But taking a long term view there will be a time when the media and the public will not so enthralled by him. I just hope he hasn’t had a chance to do too much damage to NZ by then.
You guys are obsessed with Key, This election campaign has failed for labour because you keep attacking Key, it doesn’t work so you keep on attacking Key, brilliant, not.
Helen Clark, lied to get rid of Doone, lied in corngate, lied about a painting, lied about speeding, and hung a couple of good cops out to dry to save her own neck, lied about what she knew about Owen Glenn and Winston Peters.and lied about goodness knows what we don’t know about.
No wonder National isn’t obsessed with digging the dirt on her because it is there for all to see.
But heh you just keep on digging and National will keep on winning.
hs,
Just to be clear, I don’t condone the kicking of cats or any other animals
The cat-kicking wasn’t analogous to owning shares, but rather to the non-disclosure of said ownership and any hany panky which may have ensued.
Janet, “aging swinger Peter Dunne”. eeeeewwww what horrible imagery.
sarah…you are a jealous ugly old hag
So Dunne’s not a swinger any more - he’s gotten himself engaged while still in another relationship. here’s the link - http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/events/election2008/peter_dunne_rules_out_supporting_labour-led_government
L
sarah…and if this blog has no credibility then what are you doing here?
if that is the case then you have no credibility either
but it is not the case
this blog has more political cred than any other in New Zealand
but
you still dont have any crebility yourself
q.e.d.
lew
you are a creep
R
[lprent: Stop pointlessly attacking other commentators. Adding you to moderation until I see an improvement]
randal, the depth and eloquence of your arguments never fails to underwhelm me.
L
Don’t mention cats to John Tamihere..
Once could be an honest mistake.
Twice, at best, is a monumental blunder. Do we really want someone capable of repeatedly failing to declare potential conflicts of interest as our PM?
“Once could be an honest mistake.”
Ari, for a few seconds, I thought you were going to talk about Helen’s lies over the years.
Sorry.
Robin:
Yeah right - look at the trend line. Personally I find that people from the ‘right’ whinging about this just makes me feel that more should be done on this. I find that the stance of the whingers to be as hypocritical as hell, bearing in mind the crap from the puerile right that has been running as a whisper campaign against Helen as long as I’ve known her.
Besides he turns out to be an easy target.
Robin G: Focus on Key? No surprise really. The focus was directed to him by Key. He has chosen to be the smiling face and the spokesman on everything. For some reason other spokesmen have seldom been heard or seen, or when they do, they get over-ruled. On top of that I for one, still do not know what Key stands for, or what his values are. I watched him on Agenda (and was cut off at Douglas too Bobo) and tried hard to understand his character. Still don’t know but very aware the Guyon Espinor failed to follow-up the questions that we need answers for. So Key is the Key because he made it so. And I understand my cat better.
Nice work Steve, I think you should tack this one to the top of the page for the rest of the weekend.
Robin Grieve Helen Clark, lied to get rid of Doone, lied in corngate…blah blah blah. Same old shit, nothing new - just like nats front bench
No wonder National isn’t obsessed with digging the dirt on her because it is there for all to see.
Unlike Slippery John who has hidden everything and lies about it when it’s found.
Thats why we keep attacking Key because theres so much (I assume) that even you wouldn’t know about or bring to light, and that makes it easier for us because it shows him to be untrustworthy.
Surely even you aren’t that naive to think that if National had the wood on HC that they wouldn’t put it in the public forum.
Sometime I hope that someone does a critique of the so called lies of Helen Clark. For example the painting. This was a fundraiser for a school. She was handed the back of a board to sign to help the school. MPs are often handed things to sign for fundraising such as bottles of wine. They are not claiming to have produced the wine. She never claimed to have painted the picture.
The speeding near Waimate. These decisions are made by the professionals who assess the situation and take action. Nothing to do with the person inside the car.
These Helen hating myths are kept alive by people with their own agendas. But when real dishonesty is revealed by those they support they cry foul.
Janet too true: I suggest that for the so-called Speed-gate thing, that the next time the taxi driver gets a ticket for speeding, I will do the honourable thing and step up, take the blame and pay the fine. Well I would wouldn’t I ? You? HaHaHa.
Nice work in exposing this…
Robin Grieve - lanmac is right in saying that the focus on Key has been bought on by Key himself. His pithy slogans and inspid shallowness on Agenda highlights a lack of firm values. Espinor could have been more assertive in his line of questioning on Agenda today. I didn’t get a clear answer form Key re his trading of NZ dollars. Further to that, why didn’t Vernon Small have a chance to critique Key’s performance?
Ianmac - only if you had asked the taxi to speed. There is no evidence that Helen asked the drivers to speed to get to the airport. She probably wouldn’t have minded missing the rugby game - after all she’s a league follower and has been patron of the local club for many years.
Janet: S’OK. Just having a little ridicule at poor old Robin Grieve. I agree totally with you over the nonsense he/they trot out. “As that your best shot???” I say to them after 9+ years ??? Wow!
By the way I have just realised how much the bird life has come back during the last few years. In 1999 there were hardly any birds around here and the sparrows and cabbage trees were dying. Now there is a large and healthy bird population, and the cabbage trees are thriving. They must prefer a left government too.
Obsessed with Key? I would agree with the writers who ask who else in the National caucus has been allowed to comment to allow analysis. None of the potential cabinet ministers-in-waiting have been allowed to parade their policies, or maybe there are none. The other implication is that the National leadership is very aware of how vulnerable they are if they let the potential leaders out of the pen. Lockwood…we know his honesty; Ryall who announced the increases in doctor’s fees so cheerfully; Williamson, who announced the road taxes that gobbled up all the tax refunds; McCully, the Darth Vader of the Nats. The only Nat with star value who was respected across the board was Katherine Rich, who was dropped because her views on welfare and education did not fit with the hidden policies proposed.
Bloggers on the Left are fixated on Key because the MSM would annoint an unknown whose background is at best vague, and who has been promising policies for months without any of substance being available for debate.
Janet..you are exactly right. If Key had been caught speeding to a test match, he would have been deemed a hero, a good ole boy for getting his priorities right. And, for goodness sake, most countries of the world allow their leaders the occasional speeding motorcade. That the noddies on the right still need to dredge up so called scandals speaks volumes for their substance.
Irishbill - I don’t know how to do that. We could do that though, and put in a page break below the first par.
Don’t forget the Nat’s educ spokesperson who apparently told school support staff that they were unskilled workers on rehab.
Dan
“None of the potential cabinet ministers-in-waiting have been allowed to parade their policies, or maybe there are none.”
Indeed and there has been a similar absence of current and potential Labour ministers in the public eye which is a shame - however, both Clark and Key are campaigning in a presidential fashion and have been very open about that’s the way they want it.
Indeed Janet and let’s not forget the Nat’s shadowy think tank researching better ways to bend the population to their will and eat babies.
It must all be part of the vast right wing conspiracy.
HS,
I would disagree completely. David Cunliffe was interviewed in depth last weekend and showed himself very competently; Cullen is on regularly. People such as Annette King and Phil Goff are regularly interviewed in local newspapers where they show total confidence in their portfolios.
Key keeps repeating his mantra “Time for something new!” He is the only new thing in National; the rest are tired old 90s sloggers.
HS- just because the mainstream media doesn’t cover something prominently doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened. Labour and the Greens have been issuing ridiculous amounts of press releases, even before their campaigns started.
National seems to regard press releases as an opportunity to drop as many talking points as possible, rather than a method for vigorous commentary.
Hi Steve,
How is it that “every time Key had a conflict of interest with Tranzrail he also had one with Fletcher CF”?
You stated that “FCF had a contract with Tranzrail [...]. Because of this major contractual arrangement, what happened to Tranzrail also affected FCF and vice versa.”
My question is: what was so significant about that specific contract that meant the ownership of a controlling stake in TR somehow changed the rights and obligations under that contract so as to have a material effect on the share price of FCC?
Sarah,
If I’m not mistaken National had a private dick investigating Helen Clark and her husband and he couldn’t find anything on her before the last election.
So perhaps she just is who she says she is and John Key meanwhile is so much more fun to investigate because whenever you look, and yey even private citizens get to join in the fun, under one of the rocks in his garden you find another slithery little secret.
I hear that kiwiblog has discussions that are more up your alley. They never ask questions critical of that nice John Key so perhaps you would feel more at home there.
Janet - just to clarify.
APR 2002
Clark admits signing a painting that was not her own work while Leader of the Opposition. A subsequent police investigation into a fraud complaint finds a prima facie case against her but police decide not to prosecute.
Motorcade
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10340035
Go google if you want more info.
My point? One can find anything on the Internet to support one’s point of view on any side of any debate.
Much like the Bible actually.
Well done Steve…great stuff. Im guessing the mud this time might stick. I hate the idea that someone who (god forbid) may be our PM has done nothing in his former life, other than feathering his own nest. His preoccupation with wheeling and dealing on the sharemarket., sickens me. I doubt if his interest in politicals is anything more than to serve the interests of himself and his rich greedy mates.
Oh, Sara….why dont you go somewhere more in keeping with your point of view, someplace where mindless tory drivel is the norm…try trademe opinion!
KiwiGirl - The Herald article explicitly states that Clark’s Press Secretary made the call to catch the early flight and NOT Ms. Clark. And are you really suggesting that and an autograph done in the name of charity is anywhere near as ethically dodgy as Key misleading parliament about pecuniary interests? Surely not?
These links are not for HS because clearly he’s loaned out his one functioning brain cell to someone needing it even more than he does.
And he’s clearly stuck on the conspiracy thing (perhaps that’s what his one brain cell does, looping on that word maybe he should go to sleep and reboot).
As has been pointed out there is nothing new about the group behind John Key and even John Key is beginning to look like old news. He’s been peddling Nationals labour lite now for 7 years and all he has to show for is the vote for change crap line and judging from all the little and not so little secrets and secret meetings and recorded conversations showing that the policies of National are as rabidly right wing and pro big business as always and even Ruth “Ruthanasia” Richardson is still very active in the background. CIS Sidney is the pre eminent right wing think tank in Sidney and since 2006 (must have been after the Don Brash debacle (can’t have that happen again) they now even have a New Zealand sub-think tank and who do we find on the board of directors? None other than Ruth Richardson and a gentleman by the name of Robert Champion de Crespigny AC. He is a mining tycoon and very in with the Tories and his fellow tycoons.
Robert Champion de Crespigny AC also the chairman of the board of, Yep none other than John Key’s PR firm Cosby-Textor.
The others on the CIS board?
Higher ups representing JP Morgan, Rio Tinto, Macquarie to name a few.
HS,
The moment these people open their mouths in their little private back rooms they are conspiring. That’s what they do and they are good at it. And they’ve got idiots like you believing all their crap. They conspire, that makes them rich and the punters poor. All because they have told us that those asking critical questions and investigating them are “conspiracy nutters”.
They want what this country has and which so far they have not been getting their greedy sweaty palms on. The Black sands, Coromandel gold. Our gas and our oil.
And what ever else they can come up with we’ve got it and they want it.
Anyone else of the opinion that Guyon must be looking for a job after the election?
captca: Mr naivety
I know we should avoid such talk,
But Sarah, with regards to all your whining about this site. Just curious, considering you seem to be the great crusader of objectivity… do you go and ask the same questions of kiwiblog and/or whaleoil?
riiiiight.
Back in your box
Sophie: Guyon would make a good spin-doctor for John Key and he has been practising for a long time on TV1 so he would be able to skip the interview. His brother Colin Blog on Fairfax is a different level altogether.
And, by the way. How intriguing is it that the tory spin artists have turned this entire thread in to a discussion about Paintergate of all things!
The point that I see very clearly here is:
Key asked about a million (yeh i counted) questions in the house of Clark banging on about Peters and the donations saga…. THEREFORE:
You reap what you sow Johnny Friendly.
I hope some media get a hold of this and do something, oh but thats right, they barely made a whisper over ‘Tranzrail eyes’ yet over Winston they bring out the artillery. Liberal Media though… Right??
Sophie - yes. He is shockingly biased and is obviously pro Labour. His performance tonight was disgraceful: “Peters edging towards 5%” (just over halfway is the reality); “…Key won’t have the numbers on election night” (the centre right has 63 seats and can govern on tonight’s poll).
He must have been promised a good bonus for these lines. He ran some great Winston Peters publicity last night and the night before too - lead stories and all!
Good point Chris G. Of course during Question Time National prepared the questions and handed them to Wodney and gave him their question time so that Wodney would collect the credit/blame.
Sorry to be a pain and bring the thread back to the topic … but how is this a conflict of interest?
As stated it seems a stretch, and less than bullet-proof. And you can forget about the MSM showing any interest unless it can be packaged into a dumbed-down-bite-sized-goody for ease of dissemination.
Good stuff Steve
I wonder if there is more to come. I hear that Australia may be the lucky country.
Kiwigirl.
You fret about a painting that was not very good given to a school to help them with operational expenses and you cry foul. I would be much more worried about insider trading, which is all but what Key did and he lied when asked about his shareholding.
You also complain about a driver transporting Helen driving too fast. I am much more concerned about world peace and climate change. When I think of what John Key has said over the years I am confused, because he has said two entirely different things and I get the impression that he is saying not what he actually thinks but what he thinks will be popular.
Of course one can find things to support one’s prejudices. The only thing is that Helen’s “shortcomings” are minor in the extreme whereas John’s shortcomings go to the essence of his ability to be PM. Why would you want a currency trader to be PM especially if you consider recent events?
JK was a really good currency trader. That meant that he was good at making a profit over a three month period and that he did not give a dam about the effect on the citizens of the affected countries of these decisions. This is the last person that I would want to be in charge of my country.
Go Helen!! Sorry Sarah but if you want to beat up on lefties you should go to Kiwiblog.
snakes and ladders danny boy. go back to the top and read the original post. it is quite obvious that keys had an interest in several of the questionsa tissue and what is odd that he sold his shares pretty soon after he realised that parliament has rules and is not dog eat dog liek the commercial world where slight of hand and telling untruths is the norm when seeking advantage.
travellerev - I have no desire to visit the gits over on kiwiblog. It’s like talking to a bunch of immature retards.
I like some of the stuff on this site, but sometimes it can get so partisan that it’s frustrating (ie. when there are 4 or more posts a day smearing Key). But when it’s balanced and both sides of the spectrum can voice their opinion then its one of the best blogs on the market. But I wish someone would start up a popular run-of-the-mill intelligent centre blog.
@hs (waaaay above)
Oh, Tizard couldn’t be THAT bad as Speaker, just ask whoever wrote her wikipedia article:
“Judith Tizard (Born 3 January 1956) is a New Zealand politician. She is a member of the Labour Party. She is nice. And loves tangerines.”
DeeDub and MickeySavage
Janet wrote: “Sometime I hope that someone does a critique of the so called lies of Helen Clark. For example the painting.” And -
“Ianmac - only if you had asked the taxi to speed. There is no evidence that Helen asked the drivers to speed to get to the airport.”
Geeze - I was trying to show Janet that information or opinion is very easy to find on the Internet - and that you can find ANYTHING to support your point of view. [which is something you're not allowed to have around here, evidently.]
I think I’ll go back to GREENER pastures.
And he was a good derivatives trader too. Oh oops, aren’t those the same financial products now collapsing the entire western financial world?
And didn’t the FRNZ just announce (nice touch, Sunday morning 8:05 in the first Holiday weekend of the year, what you reckon? They really wanted to tell the NZ punters that our financial system was as contaminated with these crappy SUV’s as the rest of the world) to buy billions of dollars worth of mortgage-backed securities.
Captcha: left maintain. Way to go left!
Immature retards, Sarah?
Do I even have to finish this thought?
well done Steve - the scandal is of course the lie, not the conflict of interest. That could have been sorted by an “oops, sorry”. Incredible how the same berks who keep trawling through the distant past to try to find any scrap to attack Helen with (her driver was speeding, how is that her fault?) are SO touchy about the left digging the dirt on Key. If he were just a member of the public it would be excessive but - he wants to be PM, FFS! People want to know whether he can be believed or not and on this evidence alone, he can’t.
Sarah I agree with you over the Kiwiblog place. Seldom a dialogue. But I am not sure that there are smears against (or about) John Key here exactly. He is a bit of an enigma. Tonight on Sunday TV1 they were examining the history of Obama and the concerns were raised that he had only been in politics for 12 years and there was insufficient info about the “real” man. Our John has been visible for 6 years and we do not really know who he is. The tactic to remain in the mists is deliberate I believe. Hence lets find out about him ourselves. Do you really know who John is - what he really cares about? Do tell.
Hi Sarah,
There is hope for you yet.
It is actually very easy to start a brandspankin free of charge blog. And it’s great fun too. Just go here and register.
You seem to be endowed with intelligence and perhaps you could add a valuable bipartisan and intelligent blog.
If you comment here, while I’m sure that most people will stay staunchly entrenched within their political views, I’m sure people would be more than interested to hear your opinions on the issues presented even if you do not support the partisan clobbering of John Key.
Maybe you don’t think so and you are entitled to your opinions but Slippery John is so eminently clobberable.
See Ianmac,
Again not a very ignorant remark at all, in fact rather insightful. LOL.
If someone shows up on the stage of national politics out of the blue and no info is forthcoming than that should make us curious.
If this person is closely guarded and prepped by some of the most mercenary of PR consultants with a big industrial tycoon in the background and this person can’t help himself in the stock market casino using his political connections for his own personal gain than our level of curiosity should go ballistic.
IB & SP: Tweaked the database to push it up…
It will stay at the top until tommorrow night. BTW: I can’t believe that when I looked at the net that some clown was wanting to charge for a utility to do this. All that was required was that the post date was changed. I suppose there ia sucker born every minute.
Just listened to the 10 o’clock news. No one has picked up this story yet. I’m sure there must be journos out there spending their Sunday trying to find some good stories and who must drop into the Standard if they have any sense. But this might not meet with the approval of their bosses at this sensitive time.
Steve Pierson:
Section 118 of the Companies Act actually says this:
Not a great look on a thread called “Key exposed”!
What section were you intending to refer to?
Janet - There are far more impotant stories for them to cover like celebrity marriages. Go back to sleep New Zealand, your corporate overlords are taking care of everything.