Is John Key Shonky?
Private Prosecution Filed in Auckland District Court Over Key’s Failure To Disclose Financial Interest in Trans-Rail
“Because neither the Police nor the Serious Fraud Office have decided
to investigate my complaint against John Key – I have taken a private
prosecution myself”, said Water Pressure Group Media Spokesperson
Ms Bright alleges that she that she has “just cause to suspect, and
do(es) suspect, that John Philip Key, Member of Parliament for
Helensville, dishonestly and without claim of right, attempted to use
documents with intent to obtain pecuniary advantage, being an
indictable offence under section 228 (b) of the Crimes Act 1961,
‘Dishonestly taking or using document’, the liability for
imprisonment being a term not exceeding 7 years.”
“What concerns me, is that John Key, who is supposed to be a very
experienced business person, not only did not disclose his pecuniary
interest in Tranz Rail shares at a time it was an ‘item of business’
before the House – but he attempted to flush out commercially
sensitive information by means of an Official Information Act request
to the Minister of Finance, Michael Cullen.
When the Minister of Finance, declined (on the advice of Treasury) not
to give this ‘commercially sensitive’ information, John Key then made
a complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman, in order to try and flush
out this commercially sensitive information,” Ms Bright continued.
“John Key is the man who wants to lead the ‘least corrupt country in
the world’ – yet the evidence available over the Tranz Rail matter –
shows that he bought and sold 50,000 Tranz Rail shares and doubled his
money over a five week period. He also appeared to be quite
single-minded about trying to flush out commercially sensitive
information at a time he had this undisclosed shareholding in Tranz
New Zealand spends at central government level nearly $60 billion per year.
The exact amount being spent on private sector contracts – I’m not
sure – but it would be significant.
Who decides who gets these contracts?
Do New Zealanders really want politicians who appear to use public
office for private gain?
(National supports Public-Private-Partnerships (PPPs), for infrastructure.
PPPs are internationally the most common form of privatisation –
effectively contracts with multi-national companies where the
infrastructure is still publicly owned – but the income stream flows
to the private sector through ‘long-term leases’.
How would it be decided who was to get the PPP contracts?)
Isn’t it time that the books were opened and the facts about the
‘contractocracy’ were revealed?
Who has the contracts?
Where is the cost-benefit analysis that the contracting-out model
represents a more cost-effective use of public monies compared when
services were provided ‘in-house’ through public works departments and
Isn’t it time NZ had our own ‘Independent Commission Against
Corruption’ and we learned from 20 years ‘best practice’ in fighting
corruption, eg the New South Wales Independent Commission Against
Corruption (www.icac.gov.au) ?
“New Zealand is, according to Transparency International – the least
corrupt country in the world (along with Denmark and Sweden).
Apparently – this status is based on the number of prosecutions.
However – I believe this case raised questions about the legitimacy of
New Zealand’s ‘corruption’ status.
The problem, in my opinion, is that there is no body in NZ which is
tasked with trying to prevent corruption or corrupt practices – all
which usually stem from ‘conflicts of interest’.
The Police, SFO, the Office of the Ombudsman, and Office of the
Auditor-General are all ‘complaints-driven’.
But what happens when they get complaints about allegedly ‘corrupt
practices’ and they do not even investigate – let alone prosecute?
How many other cases are there – such as mine – are simply not even
(To read a copy of my complaint – https://uncensored.co.nz/news)”
This private prosecution was filed in the Auckland District Court on
Monday 3 November 2008.
A District Court Judge will decide whether or not there is ‘a case to answer’.
“I look forward to the communication trail between John Key and his
sharebroker being disclosed under discovery.” Ms Bright concluded.
(An outline of this complaint is now available on ‘You Tube’ – “Is
John Key shonky?”
Water Pressure Group
Ph (09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127