Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

26 Comments

  1. Geeze, that is some list!

    Seems it will be a case of watch this space … more of the same to come.

  2. Everything Key has said could be best summarized in one sentence.

    “I was acting on the information I was given”

    In layman’s terms, ” I’m really just a puppet and can’t think for myself”

  3. Holy mother of Mary !!!

    Where does one start? And each and every one has a story to tell…

    If Key was a Viking… he’d fill the sagas with his infamy… and compete with Loki as the evil messenger of Jotnar…

    In more modern terms… he is an evil, spiteful deceiver of the modern nation state of New Zealand. An underminer that deserves no pity apart from contempt.

    It is time… to cast off this malevolent personage.

    435 lies to the people of this country…

    Where indeed does one start ? ….

    Where … and when does it end ? …

    1. It All Stops When the people of this country get of ya asses and vote the national party and this Robotical destroyer out of control of our country. Kia Kaha ! E Tu ! Vote Him And His Lot Out the political door.. the writing was on the WALL when he spat out the first lie.. So be accountable bring on a snap election..!signed Not an Admirer… rofl

  4. Don’t forget that the financial system -creating money out of thin air and charging interest on it- and the economic system -based on infinite growth on a finite planet whilst ignoring depletion of resources and the effects of pollution- are founded on sets of lies, so anyone who promotes current financial-economic paradigms is, by definition a liar (or a fuckwit), and all talk about ‘a better brighter future’ is absolute bollocks.

    There is no question about it, we are being pushed by mendacious maniacs like Key down the path that leads to both environmental collapse and economic collapse. We’re just not sure which will come first.

    Daily CO2

    June 2, 2016: 407.37 ppm
    June 2, 2015: 402.88 ppm

    Up 4.49 ppm (versus the 2005-2014 average of 2.11 ppm)

    and in case anyone missed it:

    ‘The Structure of Collapse: 2016-2019

    Leaders face a no-win dilemma: any change of course will crash the system, but maintaining the current course will also crash the system.

    The end-state of unsustainable systems is collapse. Though collapse may appear to be sudden and chaotic, we can discern key structures that guide the processes of collapse.

    Though the subject is complex enough to justify an entire shelf of books, these six dynamics are sufficient to illuminate the inevitable collapse of the status quo.

    1. Doing more of what has failed spectacularly. The leaders of the status quo inevitably keep doing more of what worked in the past, even when it no longer works…..’

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.co.nz/2016/06/the-structure-of-collapse-2016-2019.html

  5. Any of these worthy of adding to the list?

    I did not know about the panama paper incident.

    My lawyer never advised me that he spoke to the minister of revenue to shut down the enquiry into a possible tax avoidance scheme going on in NZ.

    We do not have a tax haven.

    We have laws that stop Tax haven activities.

    I don’t know what my lawyer always does.

    I have not been to any secret Bilderberg group meetings

    We will not spy on all people at random.

    We will not spy on any opposition MP’s any time.

    I will not use our new surveillance changes to spy for the benefit of financial or political gain.

    Our Election process is safe from vote rigging.

    We believe Government investing $100 million in a golf course is a sound investment.

    I will leave government if the political climate gets negative.

    I have never lied.

    We will operate a government process that is open & transparent.

      1. Why don’t you go to the original list which has all the links supporting the claims and ask BLiP from the Standard if he is OK with that. Something the Daily Blog should have done. Especially considering the hostility between the two blogs:

        thestandard.org.nz/the-great-big-list-of-john-keys-big-fat-lies-updated/

  6. In regards to the people of Canterbury following the EQs-
    “No one will be worse off”

    And –
    “Today all New Zealanders grieve for you Christchurch. … of the Government, let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone.”

    Yet, still today, thousands are no further ahead with the rightful compensation in order to repair or rebuild their homes and businesses, neither from their insurers, or Key’s own government agency – EQC.

    1. BruceTheMoose says: Key said; “Let me be clear that no one will be left to walk this journey alone.”

      Yes we all should have known then these are words of a real human and Jonkey is subhuman he feels no compassion toward anyone believe it.

      That was a real TRUE BLUE LIE.

  7. Yeh — we trust him about as far as we could throw a car.
    Geez when are the asleep voters going to wake up and smell the deceit.
    Why not send a copy of this list to each and every politician in NZ ?

  8. When Mr Key was asked to give a talk on morals to school children in Chch he said, “Integrity is absolutely crucial, in fact in some regards integrity is everything.”
    Given that this government works for business (under the blanket assumption that what’s good for business is good for society) and that morality has no place in the considerations of business (as the Neo-Liberals informed us years ago) it seems that our confused PM is now working to disadvantage the coming generations by encumbering them with the burden of morality while encouraging the business community to fleece them without mercy, as they can, unfettered by notions of good and bad. No wonder worker exploitation is rife.

    I hope whoever thought to ask him to speak on the subject followed up his talk with something like a selection from the above list of 435 lies, along with a warning not to trust smarminess, and to recognise hypocrisy as they have just witnessed it.

    They probably didn’t.

  9. In his book, ‘The Roaring Nineties: Why We’re Paying The Price For The Greediest Decade in History’, Nobel Loureate Joseph Stiglitz points out that Merrill Lynch was a culture of greed and dishonesty which was what led to its bankruptcy and acquisition by Bank of America. And we made one of them our PM!

    1. Who also while he was working for merill Lynch raped the NZ dollar to almost bankruptcy.

  10. and more recently
    “I remember last time I was thrown out of parliament, the same day as Helen Clarke was …” except he wasn’t, it was Don Brash, but hey? when do we believe Key these days?

    1. Add Lying Jonkey who swindled another $39 Million from us all in 1992 as a broker for the sale of NZ Rail he sold it to Fay/Richwhite who spun it to Wisconsin Rail for profit as Key made sure the sale from the crown to Fay Richwhite was for a song!!!!!

      John Key actually had thousands of undeclared shares in Tranzrail as he was running for election in 2008 and was challenged soundly by the then Labour Minister of finance Michael Cullen and had to apologise that AGAIN HIS MEMORY FAILED HIM, so that probably puts his total over 450+ lies he has made in his grubby career as agent PM for the Global rich list.
      Here is the details. Extract from Hansard Questions And Answers – Wednesday, 2 July 2008
      Thursday, 3 July 2008, 11:52 am
      Press Release: Office of the Clerk

      the full brief below showed John Key screwed us for $39 Million over the sale of Our rail in 1993 under national!!!!!!!
      QUOTE Winston Peters;

      Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports, namely, for example, from Booz Allen and Hamilton, that say that New Zealand Rail was making $36 million in 1993 and was down to make $100 million in 1994; and does she therefore not believe that taxpayers are entitled to some compensation for the 1993 sale of New Zealand Rail by the then National Government to its corrupt mates in Fay Richwhite and a foreign-owned company, Wisconsin Central Transportation?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member, like the Labour Party, opposed that sale. But there was one person who fully backed that sale and that was Mr Key, a director of Bankers Trust, which got the contract to advise the New Zealand Government on that sale. That sale was worth $400 million to the New Zealand Government—the National Government—in 1993. In that same year—the 1993 financial year—Bankers Trust, of which Mr Key was a director, pocketed $39 million in profit. Members should ask themselves the question, who benefited from the sale of Tranz Rail? Mr Key and his friends.

      (“Mr Key, a director of Bankers Trust, which got the contract to advise the New Zealand Government on that sale. That sale was worth $400 million to the New Zealand Government—the National Government—in 1993. In that same year—the 1993 financial year—Bankers Trust, of which Mr Key was a director, pocketed $39 million in profit. Members should ask themselves the question, who benefited from the sale of Tranz Rail? Mr Key and his friends.” )

      Questions And Answers – Wednesday, 2 July 2008
      Thursday, 3 July 2008, 11:52 am
      Press Release: Office of the Clerk

      Questions And Answers – Wednesday, 2 July 2008

      1. Rail and Ferry Purchase—Profitability

      1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, in relation to the Government’s purchase of rail and ferry assets, that “we are not going into this to make money”?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) : Yes.

      John Key: What is the Government’s best estimate of its on-going financial return from the purchase of rail and ferry assets?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not have that figure available. The member should put it down on notice.

      Tim Barnett: Which lines did Toll threaten to close if it did not get what it wanted in the rail access agreement?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I understand that the services that would have been closed under Toll’s plan B, in response to that situation, included the Overlander passenger service, the central North Island section of the main trunk line from Te Kūiti to Palmerston North, the Northland line, the Taranaki line, the Hawke’s Bay line, the Napier to Gisborne line, the Wairarapa line north of Masterton, Picton to Christchurch freight and passenger services, the Greymouth to Hokitika line, the Invercargill to Bluff line, and the Invercargill to Wairio line. I take it from the reaction of National members that they would love to see all of those lines closed. Labour would not.

      John Key: What was the value of the premium that the Crown paid, as indicated by Dr Cullen yesterday, for the purchase of KiwiRail from Toll Holdings?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I do not have a figure for a value on the premium.

      Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports, namely, for example, from Booz Allen and Hamilton, that say that New Zealand Rail was making $36 million in 1993 and was down to make $100 million in 1994; and does she therefore not believe that taxpayers are entitled to some compensation for the 1993 sale of New Zealand Rail by the then National Government to its corrupt mates in Fay Richwhite and a foreign-owned company, Wisconsin Central Transportation?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member, like the Labour Party, opposed that sale. But there was one person who fully backed that sale and that Mr Key, a director of Bankers Trust, which got the contract to advise the New Zealand Government on that sale. That sale was worth $400 million to the New Zealand Government—the National Government—in 1993. In that same year—the 1993 financial year—Bankers Trust, of which Mr Key was a director, pocketed $39 million in profit. Members should ask themselves the question, who benefited from the sale of Tranz Rail? Mr Key and his friends.

      was John Key: What is the expected cost of the rolling stock the Crown will need to purchase if it wants to run the assets at the level that it is proposing to the New Zealand public, over the next 5 years?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The Minister of Finance advised the House yesterday that to keep the rolling stock in its steady state—for example, no improvement—would require an investment of around $80 million a year. He further advises that to actually invest in an improved service—modern container wagons and customer-specific wagons—he estimates will cost around another $300 million over 5 years. That is a very good investment in a sustainable transport system.

      Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Prime Minister received any reports that those in this House who are critical of the purchase of KiwiRail would, if they were in a position to do so, sell KiwiRail if they had that opportunity?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I am sure National would like nothing better than to sell KiwiRail. Indeed, the National Party has opposed KiwiSaver. It has opposed Kiwibank. Now it opposes KiwiRail. What is it about kiwis and the public interest that the National Party hates?

      Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister have any reports that in October 1992 Fay Richwhite got itself made the financial adviser to New Zealand Rail, and that on 26 April the next year it jumped across the table and said: “Hello, Government; we’re the buyer.”; and can she confirm that Mr Key’s company at the time facilitated that arrangement, which did not go to the market and did not go to tender but was just made with that Government’s corrupt mates in Fay Richwhite?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: My understanding of the facts is the same as the right honourable member’s—that Fay Richwhite did, indeed, jump across the transaction. We know that Mr Key was a director of Bankers Trust, which advised on that sale. We know, furthermore, that in 2002 Mr Key’s family trust bought 30,000 shares in Tranz Rail—

      Hon Members: What?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: —30,000 shares in Tranz Rail. We know, furthermore, that as associate transport spokesperson for the National Party in 2003, Mr Key commented on whether the Government should be buying back the track. We can find no record of Mr Key disclosing his financial interest as a shareholder.

      John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm her answer from a little earlier that she is saying that Dr Cullen indicated the cost would be $80 million a year and $300 million to bring the rolling stock up; so are we led to believe therefore that the total cost of the rolling stock over 5 years, according to the calculations the Prime Minister has provided to the House, will be $700 million?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: That would be the simple addition of what I indicated the Minister of Finance’s advice was, but the gentleman who is asking the questions has never supported the Government’s buying back of rail. Indeed, Mr Key as associate transport spokesperson while owning shares in Tranz Rail at the time—which he never disclosed, as far as we can see—said publicly that shareholders were telling him they supported Toll’s offer for Tranz Rail over the Government’s offer. Well he would, would he not, because he was a shareholder, yet he purported to be speaking in the public interest as an Opposition associate transport spokesperson.

      Peter Brown: Noting the Prime Minister’s earlier answers to the former director of Bankers Trust, can she confirm that she shares the view of New Zealand First that taxpayer ownership of KiwiRailwill enable the Government to take a more strategic overview of transport in this country and make decisions that are in the best interests of New Zealand, our people, and our social and economic well-being, whereas private owners need only to make decisions that increase profits and satisfy their shareholders, and in this case overseas shareholders?

      Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The National Party members may be embarrassed, but they should be required to keep quiet while a question is being properly asked about a very key strategic asset—or it used to be, until they sold it. If they are embarrassed, that does not mean that 10 of them are allowed to shout across the House while a question is being asked, so that we cannot even hear even though we sit next to our colleague.

      Madam SPEAKER: I just ask members to keep the level of interjections down so that other members can, in fact, be heard. Would the member please complete his question.

      Peter Brown: Well, I had got to the end of it, but I do not mind asking it again.

      Madam SPEAKER: No, I think the right honourable Prime Minister understood it.

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I absolutely agree with the import of Mr Brown’s question. The fact is that the Government has decided to make a strategic investment in rail rather than pay ever-increasing subsidies to a private company. Bringing this rail company back into public ownership enables investments to be made in the public interest in a sustainable transport system.

      Rodney Hide: Why does the Prime Minister not have sufficient confidence in her policies to stand up in this House and defend them rather than throw the dirt across to the Leader of the National Party; and could she explain to the people of New Zealand why rail is deemed to be so sustainable, when it cannot even cover its costs and she intends to use the taxpayer to put in hundreds of millions of dollars more funding—is that the Labour Party’s definition of sustainable?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member misses the point. Taxpayers were up for hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidise Toll. The Government has made a decision that that does not make sense, when the opportunity for ownership is there. I would like to know what “Mr ACT”, Mr Hide, considers is dirt about telling the truth about Mr Key being a director of Bankers Trust when it advised on the privatisation in 1993, when it made a substantial profit of $39 million that year, when Mr Key’s family trust bought shares in Tranz Rail, and when no record can be found of him disclosing that interest when he was commenting on the sale in 1993 on behalf of his party.

      John Key: Can I encourage the Prime Minister to give the right honourable Michael Cullen a call when she leaves the House, when he will probably inform her that he did not actually say it would be $80 million a year for the rolling stock but would be $80 million in total, so the Prime Minister has got that bit wrong; and can we conclude from the rest of the Prime Minister’s answers today that she is actually telling the House that she has no idea of what the return from rail will be, although she is pretty sure it will be negative and therefore will not talk to us about it, that she has no idea of the premium that the Crown paid to Toll Holdings, and that she actually has no idea how the rolling stock will be paid for or how much it will cost—that when it comes to this issue, she has no idea?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course, Mr Key had the opportunity to ask all those questions of the Minister of Finance yesterday and absolutely fluffed his questions. I am interested to know what the National Party’s real policy on rail is, because I heard an interjection earlier from Gerry Brownlee, which said in respect of the Government’s purchase of rail that the shipyards are back. Mr Brownlee, if you think this policy is like buying Polish shipyards, why do you not state what you really believe and say that National supports rail privatisation, as it has always done and as Mr Key did when he advised on the privatisation in 1993?

      Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member is a senior member and knows that her use of the term “you” is out of order.

      Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am sure all members have been reminded of that and, of course, I am sure none have made that error before in this House. But I remind members to keep to the Standing Orders.

      Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister any reports that suggest a certain political party is running around the country saying that the railways in 1993 were running at a loss despite what was said in the Booz Allen and Hamilton report, which was the most authoritative document at that time; and could it possibly be true that Mr Key and his company advised on privatisation and purchase to their client because the company was a loser and was bound to cost them a fortune if they bought it?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have no reason whatsoever to doubt what the member has just said. I know that the National Party is so ideologically wedded to privatisation that if a State company is making money, it says: “There you go; the State doesn’t need to own it.” If the company is losing money, it says: “You should sell it to get rid of that liability.” Whatever the state of a public company, the National Party has an excuse for selling it.

      Madam SPEAKER: Point of order, Rodney Hide.

      Rodney Hide: It is a supplementary question.

      Madam SPEAKER: I would ask members, when they trade their supplementary questions, to give me notice of that fact before they rise to their feet.

      Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the Labour members may also like to do that. We see Mr Anderton and various other support parties take more than their allocation of supplementary questions on any given day. [Interruption]

      Madam SPEAKER: Please be quiet. As Mr Brownlee knows—and I have ruled on this before—if members notify me of a change in supplementary questions, that is fine. I am notified by parties of that, and it changes during the time that I am notified before the member rises to his or her feet, so there is no embarrassment—everybody knows. I had not been notified of Mr Hide’s supplementary question. Rodney Hide.

      Rodney Hide: I apologise. Are New Zealanders to take it from the Prime Minister’s performance in the House today that although she has come here to answer questions about rail, she does not know what it will cost taxpayers, she does not know what the premium was that was paid by the Government, and she does not know what the ongoing fiscal cost of rail is, but that she has actually taken the trouble to research the various shareholdings of Mr John Key, his directorships, and pretends to know all about that when she does not know about the policy and the cost to New Zealanders; does that not prove that this purchase is all about politics and not the good of the country?

      Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I know that the ACT party does not give a damn about sustainability or about having a sustainable transport system. I know the ACT party is ideologically opposed to public ownership. That and nothing else explains Mr Hide’s hysteria.

      Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is very interesting to hear the hysteria of Helen Clark about me. I thought the issue was more about the hysterical response from the Labour Party to questions about rail. But frankly, there is no way that personal remarks about me from the Prime Minister address the question that I asked—which proves the point.

      Madam SPEAKER: The Prime Minister did address the question, but if she wants to add anything more, she is perfectly entitled to do so.

      1. It’s nice to know that Rodney Hide hasn’t changed over the years. He was a National Party sycophant then, and he remains one to this day… as is evidenced by his column in the Herald today, bagging the MOU between Labour and the Greens. Sad little man.

  11. Therein LIES the truth, I presume, Key is just fitting the description of a perfect liar, whose words are mostly believed.

  12. Hardly any point in caling Key a credible politician when he regularly resorts to lies and even blame games.

    1. Just Me, call him like he is, Despicable Key. Pathological liar. Despicable Key.

  13. Send this list to Paddy Gower, Paul Henry and Mike Hosking and see what response you get?

    Despicable Key and his right-wing media minions will deny, divert and lie some more. Where is the people’s champion John Campbell.

    I’m sure Graham McCready could take out a Private Treason or Impeachment prosecution against the PM for this litany of lies?

  14. What a fine man we have as PM, he has a white collar, a suit and a smile, that makes most fall for his words, like they do for used car salesmen, again and again. Some people never learn and have to repeat history all over again.

    White collars do not show credibility, they could reveal white collar crime, I may caution.

Comments are closed.