John Key – Mistakes, losses of memory, or …
NZ Election 2008 – In the Public Interest
The Registrar – Wednesday, 05 November 2008
An independent inquiry into …
John Key – Mistakes, losses of memory, a cover up, or just lies and more lies?
Take a deep breath – this is not just another ‘dirty tricks’ story. It is an independent inquiry that surprisingly is uncovering the smell of 21-year-old, fish.
For those who aspire to journalistic excellence – this might just wake you up.
Yes, – it is necessary to revisit a ‘fizzer’ – so put on a clean pair of glasses and indulge in the timeline debate.
This is as good as any place to start …
Eugene Bingham – Herald – Wednesday 29 October 2008 provides more of the Key interview and the timeline reflecting Key’s involvement may surprise you.
In his statement, Mr Key says he resigned [from Elders, New Zealand] on June 24, 1988, and was immediately placed on leave because he was going to a rival, Bankers Trust. This has been found to be incorrect. According to other credible documents [the Australian H-Fee scam inquiry and the New Zealand SFO inquiry] Key states that his last day at Elders was on 31 August 1988. – However, examination of documents reveal yet again – Key contradicts himself.
“For the next two and a half months until I finally left Elders I travelled to Australia to meet with Elders people, took holidays, spent time at home and worked on the takeover of a stockbroking firm,” he [Key] said.
The first H-Fee payment of A$39.5 million was made on January 11, 1988. It has been accepted that this was handled by Australian-based executive Ken Jarrett, who went to prison after confessing to his role in the deal. [The implication being that the H-Fee scam was done in Australia.]
The second H-Fee payment of $27 million was made on September 7, 1988. Mr Jarrett told the court that because auditors had raised a query about the first payment, he needed to take more care with the second payment. He travelled to Wellington and attended a meeting that included trader Paul Richards, a friend and former colleague of Mr Key who took over as the head of foreign exchange in Wellington when Mr Key resigned.
The New Zealand Herald’s website reported today [Wed, 29 October 2008] Mr Key faced accusations of misleading the public about his knowledge of one of the country’s most notorious white collar crimes.
The allegations centre around the H-Fee and two payments totalling $A66.5 million to Equiticorp funnelled via sham foreign exchange transactions in 1988 – and an interview Mr Key gave the Herald last year. [2007]
During the interview in August 2007 Mr Key confirmed he worked as a foreign exchange dealer at Elders Merchant Finance, part of Elders IXL, which made the payments to the Allan Hawkins-controlled Equiticorp.
But he [Key] said he left Elders in 1987, before the transactions were processed, and was never involved in them. [This is a contradiction of Key’s statement that he [Key] resigned [from Elders] on June 24, 1988] Herald – Wednesday 29 October 2008.
The Herald said it had read court files that contained a statement by Mr Key in which he [Key] said he resigned from Elders on June 24, 1988, six months after the first payment was made.
[Given John Key’s contradictions – the question is – which of Mr Key’s statements is the truth? Please think about that – the answer is revealing, given the timeline that establishes the only possible veracity.]
The Herald’s website [Wed, 29 October 2008] said the documents were made public by the Labour Party, which was going to drop the “bombshell” … etc
John Key’s PR media connections swung into action. Mr Key issued a statement saying it was nothing more than “a desperate smear” 10 days from the election.
“I have never been involved in the H-Fee transaction,” Key said.
“The Serious Fraud Office director at the time has confirmed that.”
Mr Key said he had previously clarified the date he left Elders and Labour was trying to link him with the issue again.
“Labour is clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel and will stop at no lie or innuendo,” Mr Key said.
[If only John Key, or if not John, then one of his media minders, had bothered to check the timeline relevant to the breaking story. They didn’t – they got caught in the mind-set of their own PR ‘spin’ and now they are complicit in the challenge to revisit the issue and make up their minds – which version of the ‘spin’ supports the truth. That might be a Big ask.]
[That others of the Fourth Estate chose to accept and reiterate the ‘spin’ being generated to deflect the real story is understandable because being journo’s and commentators of the ‘follow the leader’ brigade – they were too eager to just accept the story line being fed and not take the time to verify the facts.
Prime Minister Helen Clark said if the Herald had published the story then the newspaper obviously believed there were questions to answer.
She said she was not handling it, but whether it was a “bombshell” depended on the answers to the questions raised by the story.
[Key and his ‘spin machine’ were quick to latch onto the SFO clearing their man Key of any wrongdoing.]
The former Serious Fraud Office (SFO) director, Charles Sturt, said on August 25, 2007, that Mr Key was not involved in the H-Fee scam.
The SFO interviewed Mr Key about it, and Mr Sturt said Key was one of many innocent people in a massive fact-gathering exercise.
“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.”
Sorry Chas, – but it is possible something may have been missed? This brings us to an uncomfortable realisation that only one of the statements John Key made can be true. Therefore, one must be a lie. Sorry John, a mistake, or is it a memory loss again? Have you worked out which one yet?
The implications impacting on the time and manner in which the lie [if any] was perpetrated will depend on the context and to whom the lie was made. The motivation behind the lie, or lies, that gave effect to distancing Mr Key from his past forex dealing [with Andrew Krieger and Key’s involvement with the 1987 ‘raid’ on the ‘kiwi’ dollar] also comes into the frame.
The links, the associations, and the self-serving interests at the time trading deals were made – they all are part of the jigsaw now being assembled. The motivation for distance is becoming clearer.
As said elsewhere – this is a work in progress.
Just where research into the inquiry will finally lead, has yet to reveal itself. What ever the outcome, the preconceptions, the bias, and the spin doctoring, will not in the final analysis, prevent the truth from coming out. Will you be party to seeking and exposing the truth?
If you have something that might add to the investigation – please send your email to the Registrar …
The Registrar
NZ Court of Public Opinion
NZ Court of Public Opinion 
November 6, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Your email challenging the Fourth estate and the inquiry about John Key bothers me. Are you for real? This looks like anothe Labour party set up to discredit John before the election. Nice try, but its too late. John Key will lead a National government after the election. He won the final leaders debate, didn’t he?
November 6, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Wondering – The email Challenging the Fourth Estate … from the tone of your post, you may not have understood the Challenge. With respect – the Challenge invited you to read the attached doc files – then ask yourself this question.
Q. Are YOU, or the media you work for, party to the spin that has promoted John Key to where he is today?
If the answer is Yes – then are you going to continue to be party to knowingly misleading the New Zealand public? [Perhaps – mistakenly misleading the New Zealand public – may have been a softer term of phrase.]
Or have you sold your sole to the paymaster, your employer, who after all has profited handsomely from the John Key campaign.
If you have any conscience or moral fiber at all – Please exercise the responsibility all journo’s and professional commentators have to their audience. [That is – to] Identify and present the ‘facts’ (without bias) and above all – ‘tell the truth’.
Are you up to it? Or are there deals already made – party alliances already formed, personal prejudices distorting your credibility, performance bonuses in the offering. Is your complicity entrenched?
Now I am also wondering – As the email you referred to was targetted at journo’s and commentators within the Fourth Estate – it would be reasonable to assume you are one among them. Apparently uncomfortable with the Challenge. – The Registrar.
November 6, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Campaigning in central Christchurch’s Cathedral Square on Thursday November 6 started calmly enough with Green Party leaders Jeanette Fitzsimons and Russel Norman taking questions from the public.
However, a group of about eight unionists supporting the left wing parties confronted National Party supporters who were awaiting the arrival of John Key. Both sides came face to face in heated exchanges, and at times pushed and jostled each other for position while trying to get their placards in front of their rivals.
One Labour supporter repeatedly asking Mr Key to “tell the truth” about the changes National would make to the Employment Relations Act.
Eventually Mr Key’s frustration boiled over.
“The truth is you’re an idiot,” he yelled back.
Is this a sign of the National leader leadership under pressure?