John Key accused of lying about Transrail shares
Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:00a.m.
The government tried to shift the focus away from Winston Peters earlier today, by attacking National leader John Key.
The Prime Minister led the charge, saying Mr Key lied about how many Transrail shares he owned when he was National's Associate Transport Spokesman and forcing him to admit that he should have been clearer when he was asked in July how many shares he had in Transrail.
"I'm prepared to accept and I fully accept that after, when I found out later on that there was a bigger share holding, even though the story had politically passed in the media, I should have come back and said that," Mr Key admitted.
In July, Mr Key told parliament his family trust sold its $30,000 rail shares in 2003. He now admits that there were others in his name, but they were registered wrongly.
And Mr Key was forced to backtrack on comments his family had only held $50,000, when it in fact had up to $100,000.
"In 2003 when the issue started hotting up, I started realising it was a political issue and in my opinion, I should have acted to sell those shares earlier," he says. "And that was a mistake."
Mr Key questioned the government about its planned buyback of Transrail while a shareholder and National's associate transport spokesman in 2003.
Michael Cullen says Mr Key has been caught red-handed.
"Even if he can produce documentation, of which I doubt show he didn't lie in 2003, he tried to lie yesterday," Mr Cullen said. "He can't have it both ways."
Mr Key says he never made any personal profit from his political position, but the government does not buy that.
Mr Key has blamed inexperience and says his broker often used his money without direction. The government says that is a convenient explanation and sounds like something Winston Peters would come up with.
However, Mr Key says it is all part of Labour's smear campaign and admits that he lost almost $68,000 selling his rail shares.
Post a Comment
Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide
(Won't be published)
25/09/2008 3:33:02 p.m.
With regards to the treaty Alex, how can we honour the treaty when the english version does not match the maori version, as it is simply the third draft, yet we ignore the final english version which was authenticated a number of years ago. It is that version that would end this division that exists now created by the grievance industry, and it is that version that matches the maori version.Much research needs to go into the skeletons that have been found, however the laws need to be altered to allow this, as researchers cannot even get simple tests done on these skeletons. From what evidence that is available, yes I would agree they would not be European but more likely from south america..There are elders that are now speaking of these stories Alex, for fear of the stories dying with them, and some even working with researchers/historians. If we allow it, a whole completely different history to our nation is about to unfold, told not only by researchers, but by respected Elders of each tribe.Do you know Alex the Native Americans stories of their star people? They are interesting stories, but for New Zealanders we also have our stories, Maori stories of star people. To move forward we must know where we came from, the roots of a nation are as important as the present and future. Take a walk Alex, take is as a skeptic, but take it with an open heart. Talk to elders, ones who do not speak of aggression etc, but who speak of peace and moving forward together, who speak of living in harmony, listen to them speak of their people's stories, then visit the areas in NZ, and there are many where writings have been found on rocks that predate maori are, then read as much from the 1800's forward that you can. Trust me, it is a walk that is rewarding and worth taking. btw, if you can afford it, Song Of Waitaha http://www.songofwaitaha.co.nz is a beautiful book worth reading
25/09/2008 3:21:47 p.m.
speculation speculation goes to show, whos really got lots to loose..and thats NOT the partys NOT entangled in winnies poohs
25/09/2008 11:00:35 a.m.
Alien, assuming you're right (which I don't personally), the question becomes:Who were these people, and where did they come from? They certainly weren't European (as if often claimed) - Europe was a backwater for a long, long time and there's no trace of some great migration into the Pacific from Europe - even in European history. That's something we, and the rest of the world, would have heard of.And the second issue is the one where people make a connection between "people here before Maori" and "Treaty claims," as if the possibility of people being here before Maori justifies the discrimination, land confiscation, cultural imperialism and impoverishment of Maori. It doesn't.
25/09/2008 10:52:14 a.m.
PeterWhen you have a baby you need to spend money. The "booze and cigs" argument is nothing but a whole lot of stupid and I'm sure you know it. You aren't paying people a profit for every baby they have (which is what it'd have to be to call it an "incentive"), you're giving them a tax break (you're receiving a targeted tax break, not a welfare payment) to help that child have food on the table. You're helping the child not die. Why do people focus on the parents having an "incentive" to have more children, when what's really happening is you're trying to give a child a decent chance at life. It's not the child's fault that they're born.It's difficult when people have incomes that vary drastically enough to have to owe money to the IRD, but for most people it's not an issue. Even without Working For Families, you'd have trouble in that regard - without knowing your income, you could change income brackets from year to year and find yourself owed money by the IRD or owing money to them.Most countries have some form of tax credit scheme like Working For Families.
25/09/2008 10:05:34 a.m.
Guy Smiley wrote:
Peter - firstly, with Working For Families you have to be working in order to qualify. You can try and tar every low-income household with the 'ciggies and booze' brush, as predominantly false as that claim is, but it's virtually impossible to waste one's money on those things when you've got a job to every day. There are bad apples, for sure, but to punish the overwhelming majority for the actions of a few is not the way to go about things. Secondly, if you cannot understand how lifting children out of poverty and giving them a better chance at education, doctor access, better food etc, as Working for Families has been proved to be doing, if you cannot see how this is better for society in the long term as a whole, then there's no point in even trying to turn your short-sightedness into something coherent. The vast majority of crime can be traced back to a lack of education and an impoverished upbringing. Want to get rid of crime? Get rid of ingrained inequality and a system which favours the selfish.
25/09/2008 12:05:13 a.m.
Peter, Upper Hutt wrote:
Im sorry Guy, so those who don't have kids should pay for those who do? What a wonderful incentive to the lower incomes to have more kids they can't afford. Another bundle of neglected joy but thats ok, mum and dad get another hundred dollars a week on booze, cigs and whatever else their smoking.Have you ever seen a baby born to a mum addicted to P? Or told a dad congratulations its a boy, do you want to come see him to be grunted at cos he wants to go outside for a smoke?How about taking a screaming kid into theatre to have his arm fixed after waiting for half an hour for the nurses to find his pregnant mum who went outside for a smoke and can't be bothered coming up to sign the anaesthetic consent. Most of these people just need a help up, not more handouts.
24/09/2008 11:35:56 p.m.
Peter - it amounts to a tax break for people with dependent children. It is designed to assist to lift the rates of child poverty in NZ, and is doing a stunning job. Supporting an across the board tax cut instead is basically saying people who aren't bringing up the next generation of NZers deserve the money just as much as those who are, which is patently false. By all means try and argue there is a higher marginal utility in across the board tax cuts, but you'll find you're wrong.
24/09/2008 10:53:47 p.m.
Alex how is working for families giving to those in need?I earn roughly $68-70,000 a year (single income) and pay the top tax rate YET the government pays me welfare to support my family? Plus if I accept the weekly payment and my income goes over the payment bracket I am because I do overtime/ callouts I end up with a tax bill at the end of the year. If I choose the lumpsum payment I have to wait 4+ months after the end of the tax year to get my payment. It doesn't have to be an across the board tax cut, you can target the them by dropping the tax thresholds for example.
24/09/2008 8:44:03 p.m.
alex, it is not so much the oral history that people should pay attention to, although the oral history is interesting. It is the physical history. Skeletons that pre-date Maori, 7 foot tall, red headed that have been found, quite a lot of them actually. Maori Oral History actually talk of these people, and they talk of these people being peaceful, and living when Maori came here. Oral History talks of both people mixing and there being descendants of these people. Not only Maori oral history, but written history from early immigrants to NZ. Historical finds of ancient writings have been found in NZ. Central North Island there are historic finds that are sealed from the public.We have such a truly rich history in this country, but we are going the way of other countries of covering that history up. And no the books haven't been debunked, because todays historians have no answers for books written in the 1800's upwards that talk of this history. And the debunking that has gone on, has to date not been able to supply any facts to counter the ample facts that has been put forward by Maori and Europeans. And Alex, when you follow the path away from what is taught, listen to these Maori elders, and follow the written histories through time that match what is passed down, and ignore the recent stuff, you find a far more beautiful country that this country is, and a far more rich country in history.
24/09/2008 8:15:53 p.m.
AlienWhy do you put so much stock in Maori oral tradition? There are also stories about Kupe being chased (or chasing?) a giant octopus to find New Zealand, and about Maui fishing the North Island up with his waka (the South Island) so the validity is questionable. The so called "true history of NZ" books have been solidly debunked.
Copyright © 2013 MediaWorks TV. All Rights Reserved.