Key on Tranz Rail
Pleased to see this statement by John Key:
- I never personally owned shares in Tranzrail. My family trust did, and initially purchased Tranzrail shares prior to me entering Parliament.
- My broker managed the details of the trust’s portfolio, reporting to a solicitor acting as an independent trustee of the family trust, and was able to act without reference to me personally.
- In early June 2003 I saw that Tranzrail was going to be a political issue, and instructed that the shares be sold. The parcel as a whole was sold at a loss.
- My recollection is that I instructed the sale prior to the 11 June select committee meeting. Nevertheless, I now believe I should have instructed their sale earlier.
- I didn’t intend to mislead in regards to the number of shares the family trust owned. The trust owned different parcels on different dates, and the focus had been on a 30,000 share parcel which was the subject of a Labour Party allegation.
- I didn’t release details of those shareholdings at that time. In hindsight I should have, and I am doing so now.
This is the exact opposite of what Peters has done. Give us the facts, and admit that it should have been handled better. Key has noted that he could have exited the Tranz Rail shares earlier and that is a call I agree with. He was still in his first year of being an MP then, and as he started to get promoted, he became more aware of the potential conflicts. In fact I understand during that year he instructed his brokers to divest themselves of pretty much all NZ stocks, to minimise any actual or perceived conflicts. But it would have been better for this to have been done slightly earlier than it was.
National has put online a letter from his broker setting out all transactions with Tranzrail. They have also put up all the actual share contracts. Again smart work to get it all out there. As Key says, it would have been better to do this earlier also.
In terms of this, and other related issues, I’d make two comments:
- National needs to focus more on risk management and mitigation – maybe even having a dedicated staffer whose only job is to look at the worst case scenarios around items and issues, and make sure this feeds into decision making. Even the most innocent meeting should be looked at by someone who is skilled at working out ways it could be twisted, made to look sinister, etc etc. Because there will be more of this sort of stuff, beyond doubt.
- When things do go wrong though, the response is generally very good. Calling a press conference this morning, having Key admit in hindsight he could have handled things better and making all the documents available is the right thing to do.
Clark to this day still denies she did anything wrong by sitting on the revelation by Owen Glenn he had donated to Winston for six months. In fact she still denies Peters even did anything wrong except by rude to the media!
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Call me boring but pretty much a “hear hear” in relation to that post. National’s risk management and avoidance is rubbish but their mea culpa is bloody slick. That, at least, is a lesson learnt from 2005 (after the EB thing was allowed to drag).
With the “I could have done better” out there it gives greater room for minimisation (it was six years ago) and comparison (Clark stayed silent for six months on Glenn).
Again, if that’s one of the neutron bombs then someone forgot to connect the detonator to the bit that goes boom – lots of smoke but no devastation.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Whew, thank God he has come out in this way, speedily & truthfully , gives him the moral high ground.
NOW – Nat’s get stuck in…attack…attack..attack. put em on the back foot and keep them there, it obvious to all that there is ammo aplenty.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Can be summed up in the three political C’s.
Clumsy…………….Key
Cynical…………….Clark/Cullen
Corrupt…………….Peters.
Which trait is more desirable in our leaders?
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Like, say, a question from a journo on whether he’d met with Lord Ashcroft so that instead of looking like a schoolboy whose mum had just discovered him playing with himself he could have responded like a leader and said “Of course. Just as I’d expect Ms Clark to talk to, say, UK Labour donor and powerbroker – and now Lord – Tony Drayson if he visited the country. Next question.”
They don’t need a dedicated “worst case scenario” staffer, DPF, and I suspect you know it. Did Shipley have one when you worked for her? I strongly suspect not. But can you imagine her wilting when asked a fairly predictable question like that!?
What National needs to do is get rid of whoever’s advising on strategy and bring in some people who know what the hell they’re doing. Briefing Key on worst case scenarios is a small, vital, but bloody obvious part of an overall political consultancy role, and you of all people know it – though your loyalty in not calling National’s advisors on their incompetency is admirable. It just makes my blood boil to see rookie mistakes like this being made at a national (pardon the pun) level.
If National’s political enemies weren’t so blinded by their irrational hatred of Key they’d see the real issue here isn’t some share declarations. It’s whether Key is a good judge of the standard of advice he’s receiving and if he’s not (and he certainly seems to think the advice he’s receiving now is okay when it’s obvious it’s not) then how will he know what advice to take as PM?
[DPF: Actually the Ashcroft meeting is an example of what I mean. A risk management staffer should have insisted the meeting be in the public diary, as they could see the potential for it to be made sinister]
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
boomtown: WRT Clark & Cullen, I was thinking of another ‘C’ word.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
If I were a Nat MP I would be beefing up my security systems around my home my office my spouse/partner and my children
The Socialists have now plumbed the depths so deeply that I wouldnt trust them to not do anything.
never say never Not when your dealing with Crazy Clark and her gang of thugs
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Duxton…………….so was I but, there maybe children reading!
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Nice, he cleared it up in five minutes.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Boomtown Prat
Cullen is certainly cyncial, but I would put Clark on the same level as Peters.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Wish he had just come out and said, yeah, I lost over a hundred grand on this but I told my broker to sell them anyway when I knew Cullen was going to try and buy back the track and have a go at buying some of the shares. Incurring a big financial cost to avoid a conflict of interest and preserve his integrity would carry some weight with the electorate in the trust debate, I would have thought.
Maybe somebody else needs to speak up and say that, and go on the attack to turn this into a big plus, not just a hasty defense from the ambush.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
‘WRT Clark & Cullen, I was thinking of another ‘C’ word.’
Clowns ?
Corpses ?
Cancer ?
Calamity ?
Counterfeit ?
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Pity that JK didn’t pre-handle this!
He has to be very smart against the despicable and nasty organisation that is Labour.
I feel much more relaxed.
Can you imagine the panicky phone calls between Helen and Winston.
The best news is that they will be logged for later!
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
National needs to focus more on risk management and mitigation – maybe even having a dedicated staffer whose only job is to look at the worst case scenarios around items and issues, and make sure this feeds into decision making.
No no no no no! Doing so would be to begin to stoop to the same level of dirty politics and personal attacks that is the sole province of the left so far (and long may it remain so). It is plainly obvious that the average kiwi in the street trusts John Key and accepts his word when he said he did nothing wrong. Nothing Labour says can change that. Just ignore their buzzing and get on with preparing for government.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Yes it’s all just risk management and a “must do better” for national isn’t it.
There’s nothing at all APPALLINGLY WRONG AND CORRUPT about National’s Rail spokesperson making all sorts of movements and shakes in the House over the operations of Tranzrail, while at the same time his tranzrail shares miraculously grew in value enormously.
And then, as soon as the value of those shares hit 100% of what he paid, he RIGHTLY realised he had a conflict of interest, and straight away he NOBLY hocked them off for 100% profit.
What a fucking hero. So much more squeaky-clean than the “Corruption” of the Labour Leadership that we are always hearing about here.
John Key – looking after his investments since 2002.
Vote Hawaiian Investor for PM. I’ll give you a tax cut!!
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“National’s Rail spokesperson making all sorts of movements and shakes in the House over the operations of Tranzrail, while at the same time his tranzrail shares miraculously grew in value enormously”
Without indicating how anything Key said in parliament moved the share price, you are achieving little more than if you sat there mashing your forehead along your keyboard.
You dont understand what you are talking about, and nobody cares that you are apoplectic with irrational rage, RRM.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Question:
Will Fransesca Mold publicly concede that she was misinformed by the “Labour researcher” that:
a) J Key personally held shares and
b) that there were 100,000 shares held
The information provided clearly puts the lie to both those “facts” and shows this up for what it truly was a dirty little Labour inspired smear. Amazing that it was swallowed hook, line and sinker by a gullible media. (unless of course there was some political influence on TVNZ to beat it up bigtime, but we wouldn’t expect them to be THAT HONEST to admit it)
And by the way Fransesca if you are reading this, please research your subject matter.
Nobody “owns” a Trust and to say that some shares were bought or sold by a Trust “owned by John Key and his wife” is at best mischievious, probably just plain ignorant and at worse deliberately misleading the public who generally believe what they see and hear on the idiot box.
Oh for some genuinely informed opinion makers.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I don’t see how John Key could have done much more than he did. Maybe acted faster, as he himself has realised, or maybe have been omniscient and never have allowed his broker to purchase the shares. But how many of us have that degree of foresight (read psychic ability)? I do think that, sadly, he will have to be very much on the alert for real dirt coming from the future Opposition. Not a scenario anyone likes to contemplate. One grows heartily sick of the dirt digging and the only thing to hope for is that National restrain from joining that particular club.
Comment seen on a car in Mangawhai – “Life’s a bitch – so don’t vote for her”.
My sons ‘strapline’ – National for the nation! That’s what happens when 15 year olds get into politics!
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
RRM – get a calculator, you have obviously run out of fingers. .. idiot
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Oops, my bad:
“On June 10, 2003 Key sold his personal parcel of 50,000 shares for about $51,000, doubling his profit in just five weeks.”
“I don’t ever believe I’ve traded shares for my own personal benefit since I’ve come into parliament,” Key says.
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/2095831
And don’t call me an idiont. YOU’RE an idiot. So there.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
This is great he has put all the facts out in the open – he has nothing to hide. His honesty makes the media (Francesca Mold) look like corrupt little mud diggers. Key is certainly on a learning curve having to deal with such disgusting and low-level opponents, but let’s face it aren’t we all? I don’t think many of us have experienced the scummy gutter tactics of the Labour party before, as they continually stoop to new low after new low. I mean who could forecast that! I just can’t wait to have an honest Prime Minister again, and get this country back to sane Government.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
RRM, Go back to the numbers and tell me what “profit” was doubled.
Then tell me which part of “… all trades were conducted and registered in our systems under your Trust …….” do you not understand and would lead you to believe the BS about personal parcels.
Either you are particularly (and spectacularly) dumb or just plain gullible and incapable of sorting out media bull from facts. Which is it old chap?.
Sorry I’m too technically illiterate to do smileys but a finger pointed to the temple should give you the message.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
RRM.
The total windfall from Key divesting himself of the tranzrail shares amounts to a 110 k loss. Please tell me you haven’t been advising Cullen, because looking at how much he paid for tranzrail, and your grasp on these matters, it looks like you have been.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Key fronts up and admits his mistakes
Clark ‘leans’ on the Police to turn the other eye to her mistakes
Winston tells lies about his mistakes and goes feral when he’s caught out
No contest in the integrity stakes
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
From the Herald website:
Labour has tried to paint Mr Key as a hypocrite for criticising New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, when he himself failed to disclose a pecuniary interest.
But Mr Key rejected that. He said his share information was on the public share register, there was no Register of Pecuniary Interests for MPs until 2005, and whether he owned 30,000 or 100,000 shares was irrelevant to conflict of interest questions.
nuff said
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
This whole issue is Labour’s only line of attack to Key’s question and he has neatly defused it.
Helen Clark is now unmitigated shrew in my opinion and her conduct in questiontime in laughable!
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Helen is really rattled in the house today
She’s a donkey on the edge….
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I’d like to know how much money Clark has made from property due to her government driving up the cost of housing and why she hasn’t divested herself of it
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Hear, hear, emmess…..
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
As mentioned above, most people get their information from the news or Campbell Live. The public is too gullible and lazy to find the facts out for themselves and the news is pro labour. Although it doesn’t even compare to Helen Clarks lying for 9 years, labour will get mileage out of it. The fact that he lost money on the deal is painful enough to any investor, but Labour and the news are going to constantly bring up this red herring to avoid the winston peters saga.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Look, it shows up the bent of people in the media that they’ve got to help their Aunty Helen stave off John Key for another term so that she can put the finishing touches on their cultural Marxist revolution by stealth, when they dredge up a scandal this shonky. “John Key” “bought shares”……..”John Key” “sold shares”……”John Key” “did this”…..”John Key” “did that”…..
All the time I am screaming, what if John Key’s broker did all this without him knowing? I smell sleazy crooked little political stooges a mile off and I hope most NZ-ers do too by now; don’t give us that garbage about “news” and “impartial reporting” and “journalistic integrity”.
EDIT, JackP, just saw your comment, you too, eh……GOOD.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I’m overseas so I’m a little slow on this.
Something doesn’t match up. One of the links in these comments says that Key personally bought shares where the Kiwiblog entry states that he never personally owned shares, only the trust did. Has that been cleared up? Which is correct?
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Larry Williams has just interviewed John Key, and highlighted deliberate mistakes in the TV One news article. I have just submitted the following complaint to TVNZ.
“At approximately 6.30pm on 22 Sep 08, TV One news carried a story about John Key’s trading in Tranzrail shares.
The article alleged that John Key had purchased and traded shares in his own name. This is factually incorrect. All the trading was done in the name of the Key Family Trust.
The article was unbalanced, in that too much weight was given to one source: namely, material provided by the Labour Party Research unit. The journalist, whose relationship with a senior member of the Labour Party was unstated, did not question the veracity of the material; nor did she seek to confirm the information by checking other sources.
The article was plainly inaccurate, as proved by the trading documentation which showed that all trading was conducted by the Trust, and none was conducted in John Key’s name.
The article was also plainly unfair, in that the events described were a distortion of what had actually occured.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“Nothing to do with ME… it was all a TRUST!”
(quoth Winston…)
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Good on him for coming clean so quickly. Does anyone think we will see the main stream media report JKs effort to clear the water so decisively? Not very likely.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:07 pm
QUESTION:
Does Franny Mould have a mustache?
[DPF: 20 demerits]
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
RRM if you read the entire article is states that he recouped 48000 of the 108,000 he invested. He lost 60,000. I really don’t see where your headed on this. He bought the shares before he became an MP. He sold them before the select committee could talk about buying the Toll back. By the way, taxpayers paid out 500 million more than we had too because of Cullen’s idiocy. Who in their right mind would pay 6 times more than what the item is worth. Key took a risk and lost. Cullen took no risk and we the taxpayer lost. He still gets his paycheck. Gosh, the 8th of November can’t come too soon!
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Key should have just been much more vague when asked the question about how much stock he owned. What should he have said? “Over 9000″.
There would have been no story then.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:18 am
jackp says at 10:52 pm:
Socialists with other peoples money.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:55 am
OECD rank 22 kiwi (763) says at 3:18 am
“Who in their right mind would pay 6 times more than what the item is worth.”
Socialists with other peoples money.”
How VERY dare you OECD, that money WAS Kullens.
September 24th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Here’s hoping the Kullenator doesn’t get any ideas from Gordon and Alistair in the UK.
Suddenly borrowing for tax cuts and a grab bag of wasteful social spending would be on the cards.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:02 am
The Nats need to get hard now and roll out the big guns, 6 weeks-ish till election date.
The time for conservative, timid electioneering is over boys and girls (and you know I’ve advocated low key so far).
National, if you are listening, get a rocket up ya and start getting hard with the commies.
Its time for the fire and brimstone.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:22 am
National as yet hasn’t succeeded in sowing the seeds of panic into voters minds regarding the crazy and vindictive schemes Labour will hatch if the get a four term.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:25 am
6 weeks guys – DPF.
September 24th, 2008 at 6:04 am
8 November is going to rock. It will be like 2005 should have been.
Farewell to Labour First.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I think the media should be thanked for bringing this to light before Key forms the next Government.
It is said that a good fright is more valuable than the best advice and what this does is encourage Key (and his collegues) to be honest with the public right from the start, because they will be caught out. It’s a valuable lesson, and we the public will be the winners as it will aid in keeping the National Government honest.
Remember how Clark when in Opposition, campaigned on getting rid of sleeze, well lok at her now. Ditto Winston Peters.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
That was pretty woeful really. The look on Key’s face spoke volumes; rabbit caught in the lights. His capacity to hold up under pressure is very limited. If this is the storm in a teacup supports claim, why’s he handling it so badly? Why did he not mention this risk to any colleagues, did he expect he’d not be scruntinised in the way Peters is? Did learn nothing from the mismanagement of the Exclusive Brethrens or the Lord Ashcroft visit. I suspect many National caucus members are crossing their fingers and hoping to hide him away… pity there’s no policy to announce hey?