Govt hits back at Key over Tranz Rail deal

NEW ZEALAND HERALD: The Government last night accused National leader John Key of misleading statements over the sale of his TranzRail shares now that the date of their sale has been clarified.

Prime Minister Helen Clark accused Mr Key this week of having a conflict because of his family trust holding $30,000 of shares in TranzRail in 2002 and 2003.

That was because on June 18, 2003, while National's associate transport spokesman, he criticised the Government's competing bid with Toll to buy back the rail tracks without declaring his shareholding.

But her attack backfired when Mr Key told Parliament the trust had sold the shares before he made those comments and that Helen Clark had misled the House.

A spokesman for Mr Key said yesterday the shares were sold on June 9, 2003, and June 12, 2003. The spokesman also said the shares had been sold to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest and to the best of his knowledge Mr Key had not made any comments about the company while a shareholder.

But Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen last night pointed to questions Mr Key asked in Parliament on April 9, 2003, while he still owned the shares.

The question to Dr Cullen had been: "What instructions has the minister issued to Treasury regarding the many secret meetings they have held in recent months with TranzRail's management, and can he confirm the reasons that all proposals to spend the $30 million allocated to Transfund in the alternatives to roading scheme have indeed been stonewalled by him to ensure Cabinet had the resources to buy back the tracks, once Treasury reports back to him in a month?"

Dr Cullen said Mr Key misled the public. He also referred to statements Mr Key made in the debate in October 2003 over MPs setting up a pecuniary interests register.

"If I am a shareholder of TranzRail and I want to get up in this House and start talking about that company, then my shareholding is relevant," he had said.

Mr Key's spokesman said yesterday he had done nothing wrong because he had not been seeking information for any commercial purpose.