18 November 2011
Hi folks – I’m standing as an Independent Candidate in the 2011 NZ General Election, in the pivotal seat of Epsom, ‘blowing the whistle until my eyeballs bleed’ (as it were).
But I am effectively being censored by NZ mainstream media, and need assistance from international media if NZ media are not going to help the NZ public cast an ‘informed vote’.
What would REALLY help is if those of you who have international media connections could please forward this information to them.
As a known anti- privatisation and anti-corruption activist, I am campaigning against ‘white collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and ‘CORPORATE WELFARE’:
(Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010)
The following is my ‘ACTION PLAN’ upon which I am campaigning:
ACTION PLAN TO PREVENT CORRUPTION – ‘WHITE COLLAR’ CRIME & ‘CORPORATE WELFARE’ IN NZ:
1. Get our anti-corruption domestic legislative framework in place so NZ can ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption.
2. Set up an NZ independent anti-corruption body tasked with educating the public and PREVENTING corruption.
3. Change NZ laws to ensure genuine transparency in the funding of candidates for elected public office and political parties at central government level.
4. Legislate for an enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’ for NZ Members of Parliament (who make the rules for everyone else).
5. Make it an offence under the Local Government Act 2002 for NZ Local Government elected representatives to breach their ‘Code of Conduct’.
6. Make it a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Government elected representatives.
7. Make it a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Central Government staff responsible for property and procurement, (including the Ministry of Health), in order to help prevent ‘conflicts of interest’.
8. Make it a lawful requirement for a publicly-available ‘Register of Interests’ for NZ Local Government staff, and Directors and staff employed by ‘Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) responsible for property and procurement.
9. Make it a lawful requirement for details of ‘contracts issued’ – including the name of the contractor; scope, term and value of the contract to be published in NZ Central Government Public Sector, and Local Government (Council), and ‘Council-Controlled Organisation (CCO) Annual Reports so that they are available for public scrutiny.
10. Make it a lawful requirement that a ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of NZ Central Government, and Local Government public finances be undertaken to prove that private procurement of public services previously provided ‘in-house’ is cost-effective for the public majority. If not – then return public service provision to staff directly employed ‘in-house’ and cut out these private contractors who are effectively dependent on ‘corporate welfare’.
11. Legislate for a legally-enforcable ‘Code of Conduct’ for members of the NZ Judiciary, to ensure they are not ‘above the law’.
12. Ensure that ALL NZ Court proceedings are recorded, and audio records made available to parties who request them.
13. Make it a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ Judicial ‘Register of Interests’, to help prevent ‘conflicts of interest’.
14. Make it a lawful requirement for a publicly-available NZ ‘Register of Lobbyists’ at Central Government Ministerial level.
15. Make it a lawful requirement at NZ Central and Local Government level for a ‘post-separation employment quarantine’ period from the time officials leave the public service to take up a similar role in the private sector. (Help stop the ‘revolving door’).
16. Make it a lawful requirement that it is only a binding vote of the public majority that can determine whether public assets held at NZ Central or Local Government level are sold; or long-term leased via Public-Private –Partnerships (PPPs).
17. Make it unlawful for politicians to knowingly misrepresent their policies prior to election at central or local government le vel.
18. Make laws to protect individuals, NGOs and community-based organisations who are ‘whistleblowing’ against ‘conflicts of interest’ and corrupt practices at central and local government level and within the judiciary.
19. Legislate to help stop ‘State Capture’, a form of ‘grand corruption’ arguably endemic in NZ – where vested interests get their way at the ‘policy level’ before legislation is passed which serves their interests.
Prepared and authorised by Penny Bright, Independent Candidate for Epsom 2011 ( 86A School Rd, Kingsland. email@example.com)
(You might find it as unbelievable as I do – that despite the lack of transparency in NZ – as outlined above, NZ is still ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (along with Denmark and Singapore according to the 2010 Transparency International ‘Corruption perception Index’.)
WHERE WILL THE MONEY COME FROM TO PAY FOR THESE THINGS THE PUBLIC NEEDS?
By ‘CUTTING OUT THE CONTRACTORS’ NZ could presumably halve our current central Government budget of $82 billion by $40 billion.
See my Press Release dated 3 November 2011:
“Where’s National’s ‘corporate welfare’ reform?
Which of the maor political parties are pushing for ‘corporate welfare’ reform and shrinking the long-term dependency of the private sector on our public monies?
Where is the ‘devilish detail’ at both local and central government level – which shows EXACTLY where our public rates and taxes are being spent on private sector consultants and contractors?
Why aren’t the names of the consultant(s)/ contrators(s) – the scope, term and value of these contracts, published in Council or central government Annual Reports – so this information on the spending of OUR public monies is available for public scrutiny?
Where are the publicly-available ‘Registers of Interests’ for those local government elected representatives, and staff responsible for property and procurement, in order to help guard against possible ‘conflicts of interest’ between those who ‘give’ the contracts and those who ‘get’ the contracts?
Where’s the ‘transparency’?
Given that New Zealand is ‘perceived’ to be the least corrupt country in the world – along with Denmark and Singapore, according to Transparency International’s 2010 ‘Corruption Perception Index – shouldn’t we arguably be the most transparent?
Going back a step – where are the New Zealand ‘cost-benefit’ analyses which prove that the old ‘Rogernomic$ mantra – public is bad – private (contracting) is good’ can be substantiated by FACTS and EVIDENCE?
At last – someone – somewhere has actually done some substantial research – which proves the opposite.
That ‘contracting out’ services that were once provided ‘in-house’ is actually TWICE as expensive.
“USA Project On Government Oversight (POGO) decided to take on the task of doing what others have not—comparing total annual compensation for federal and private sector employees with federal contractor billing rates in order to determine whether the current costs of federal service contracting serves the public interest.
(This seems to be my only Press Release which has been picked up – to date.)
Internationally, the spotlight is now shining upon this NZ election, owing to our NZ Prime Minister, (ex-Wall Street banker, and former Head of Derivatives for Merrill Lynch) John Key’s making a complaint to the Police about the (arguably inadvertent) recording of a ‘private’ conversation between himself as Leader of the NZ National Party , and the ACT candidate for the politically pivotal electorate of Epsom, John Banks.
Media were invited to this (now infamous) ‘cup of tea’ meeting, on 11 November 2011, which was supposed to somehow give the official ‘nod’ for National party voters in Epsom to give their electorate vote to ACT candidate John Banks, in order to help ensure ACT as a coalition partner for National.
So – the NZ Media were invited inside, to film this media circus, (I say ‘circus’ – because National Leader John Key, who lives in the Epsom electorate isn’t actually going to vote for John Banks himself – but somehow – by having a cup of tea with ACT candidate John Banks, National Party voters are supposed to (by osmosis?) deduce that THEY are to take the action that their ‘Leader’ is not – and give their electorate vote to ACT candidate John Banks.
It seems that when the media were asked to leave the cafe and go outside, some form of device recorded what was NOW supposed to be a ‘private’ conversation between the two Johns – with media – cameras bristling OUTSIDE the cafe windows.
Was this a ‘private’ conversation, or a ‘two-faced’ political conversation, which the voting public should be entitled to hear?
Although some mainstream media do have copies /transcripts of this ‘conversation’ – to date, none have yet published it.
However, a copy was apparently leaked to Winston Peters, Leader of NZ First, who has made public some of the ‘key’ points:
“Winston Peters has revealed more details about the secretly taped conversation between the Prime Minister and John Banks in Epsom.
Speaking at a meeting in Invercargill, he said John Key had told Mr Banks Catherine Isaac should be the next leader of the Act Party.
Ms Isaac is second on the party list, a former president of the party and the widow of recently-deceased Business Roundtable director Roger Kerr.
Mr Peters said Mr Banks described current Act leader Don Brash as “a strange fellow”.
Mr Key then apparently said “We’ve been down that road before.”
The New Zealand First Party leader also said Mr Key had said the party’s constituents “were dying off”.
– The Southland Times”
Because NZ Prime Minister John Key, has made a complaint to the Police, in order to prevent the publication of this taped conversation (which Winston Peters has now made public anyway) – this is now international news:
“New Zealand prime minister seeks to block recording
John Key claims he was illegally recorded in a private conversation with an ally just days before the upcoming election.”
17 November 2011 Last updated at 05:02 GMT
John Key ‘illegal tapes’ row erupts in New Zealand
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key speaks during the Hellensville electorate “Meet the Candidates” meeting at Whenuapai Primary School on November 9 Opposition politicians have demanded John Key “comes clean” over the recording
Continue reading the main story
New Zealand profile
New Zealand police have ordered four media organisations to hand over evidence of an alleged illegal recording of Prime Minister John Key. ”
“NZ police to target media over Key tape
Updated: 19:17, Thursday November 17, 2011
Police Investigate Media After New Zealand Premier Complaint
November 17, 2011, 6:42 PM EST
MY PRESS RELEASE – YET TO BE PICKED UP BY MAINSTREAM NZ MEDIA:
17 November 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Independent Candidate for Epsom – Penny Bright:
‘NZ Prime Minister John Key’s ‘Brand Key’? SHONKY.
“Never mind the grinning chimpanzee ‘tea party’ – the outcome of which being that the Leader of the National Party John Key, has confirmed that he will be voting for National Epsom candidate Paul Goldsmith – NOT John Banks,” says Independent Candidate for Epsom – Penny Bright.
“John Key says he’s not telling people vote for John Banks but he wants him back in Parliament.
“In 2005 and 2008 they gave their party vote to National and their electorate vote to the ACT candidate and if they were to do that in 2011 I wouldn’t be unhappy.”
Questions of hypocrisy are being asked, as John Key is an Epsom voter himself and says he will vote for National candidate Paul Goldsmith.”
“But by some mysterious mechanism (perhaps by reading the tea leaves?) – National Party voters are supposed to deduce that they are not to follow their National Party Leaders’ lead’ – but vote for the National Party “B” Team candidate – Epsom ACT MP – John Banks?”
“This is the arguably commercially incompetent John Banks – who, along with ex-Governor of the Reserve Bank Don Brash couldn’t even properly run a Hulich Kiwisaver scheme, but want to help run the country as National Government coalition allies?”
“What sort of astute political judgment being shown here by NZ Prime Minister John Key?
John Banks and Don Brash are the arguably two yet-to-be charged and convicted ‘white collar’ criminals who have yet to feel the force of the ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ they espouse for everyone else – equally applied to themselves?”
Ms Penny Bright wants to know why weren’t John Banks and Don Brash equally charged along with fellow former Director of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd Peter Huljich, for signing off Registered Prospectuses which contained untrue statements.
“If they were effectively protected because of their political connections at the highest levels – isn’t that arguably a form of corrupt practice?
What I want to know is why there has effectively been a mainstream media ‘blackout’ on my formal request to the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, Adam Feeley, that the same charges that were laid against former Director of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd – Peter Huljich, equally be laid against fellow former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd – Don Brash and John Banks.
‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ – sort of thing?” continues Ms Bright.
Ms Bright notes that three years ago – when former ACT Party Leader Rodney Hide made a complaint to the SFO against NZ First – that was accompanied by MAN ON THE MOON headlines.
Although the complaint came to nothing and no charges were ever laid by the SFO against NZ First.
“Spot the difference!” says Ms Bright.
“Could it be that in NZ, our democracy actually works according to the ‘golden rule’ (those who have the gold make the rules) and we get the government that the majority of BIG BUSINESS interests want us to have?
I believe that the majority of BIG BUSINESS interests want a National/ACT Government returned in this 2011 General Election.
The evidence upon which Ms Bright is relying to substantiate her claim, is the NZ Herald On Sunday article dated 13 November 2011, “Biz leaders:policies that pass go” by Susan Edmunds.
“KEY points in this article are as follows,” continues Ms Bright:
FAVORITE POLICY: ONE
Partial sale of state-owned assets (National)
Employers and Manufacturers CE, Kim Campbell
FAVORITE POLICY: ONE
Partial sale of state-owned assets (National)
Auckland Chamber of Commerce CE, Michael Barnett
FAVORITE POLICY TWO:
Partial sale of state-owned assets (National)
Business Round Table Chairman, Roger Partridge
National awards system (Labour)
Employers and Manufacturers CE, Kim Campbell
Capital Gains Tax (Labour)
Auckland Property Investors Association Head, David Whitburn
Lifting the minumum wage (Labour)
Business Round Table Chairman, Roger Partridge
Extension of the Working for Families tax credit (Labour)
No GST on fruit and vegetables (Labour)
Wellington Chamber of Commerce CE, Ken Harris
Ms Bright wonders if this has had anything to do with mainstream corporate media (until VERY recently) usually portraying ex-Wall St banker and former Head of Derivatives for Merrilly Lynch – John Key in the most favorable possible light, and Labour Leader Phil Goff in the worst possible light?
“It’s a fair question – isn’t it?” concludes Ms Bright.
Independent Candidate for Epsom
Campaigning against ‘white collar’ CRIME, CORRUPTION (and its root cause – PRIVATISATION) and ‘CORPORATE WELFARE’
(09) 846 9825
021 211 4 127
OPEN LETTER / REQUEST TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE, ADAM FEELEY:
FOR THE SAME CRIMINAL CHARGES TO BE FILED AGAINST DONALD THOMAS BRASH AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS AS WERE AGAINST THE FORMER FELLOW DIRECTOR OF HULJICH WEALTH MANAGEMENT PETER KARL CHRISTOPHER HULJICH:
14 November 2011
Director of the NZ Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
Dear Mr Feeley,
I am deeply concerned to have to request the assistance of the NZ Serious Fraud Office, in order to have the principle of ‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’ equally applied to fellow former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Dr Don Brash and John Banks.
The reason why I am requesting the assistance of the NZ Serious Fraud Office, is because, in my considered opinion, the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes, has failed to ‘do his job’.
In my considered opinion, the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes has NOT ensured the application of the same law equally and consistently to ALL three former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Dr Don Brash, John Banks and Peter Huljich, ALL of whom equally signed, for example, the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme ‘Registered Prospectus’, dated 18 September 2009, which contained ‘untrue’ unit price performance graphs.
This is the latest correspondence which I have received from , the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes, on this matter, in an email dated 13 November 2011:
“Dear Ms Bright
Thank you for your letter, which was handed in to my Auckland office on 8 November 2011.
I have reviewed your latest correspondence carefully, noting that it does not raise any new or significantly different issues to those raised by you on 27 September 2011.
FMA’s position is unchanged from that expressed in my email to you on 28 September 2011. I am satisfied that the position of both Mr Banks and Dr Brash was carefully considered by the Securities Commission and that competent advice was received in relation to the entities or persons against whom charges ought to be brought. Unless you have new information or evidence to bring to light which was not previously considered by the Securities Commission, FMA does not consider you have any basis on which to suggest it should bring proceedings against either Mr Banks or Dr Brash in relation to Huljich Wealth Management.
Sean Hughes | Chief Executive | Financial Markets Authority
T: + 64 4 472 9830 | E: firstname.lastname@example.org
Level 8, Unisys House, 56 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand
Level 5, Ernst & Young Building, 52-70 Galway Street, Britomart, Auckland, New Zealand
PO Box 1179, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
I hereby formally request, that in order for ‘justice to be done and be seen to be done’, and for the principle of ‘equality before the law’ to be preserved in practice, for you to please exercise ‘due diligence’ and take all necessary steps to ensure that the same charges that were laid by the Securities Commission against Huljich Wealth Management Director, Peter Karl Christopher Huljich, are equally laid against former fellow Directors Donald Thomas Brash and John Archibald Banks.
For your information, when I asked why charges had not been laid against former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ ) Limited, Donald Brash and John Archibald Banks, the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes, replied in an email dated 28 September 2011:
“Dear Ms Bright,
I refer to your inquiry yesterday regarding the position of Mr John Banks and Mr Donald Brash as former directors of Huljich Wealth Management.
I understand that when this matter was initially brought to the Securities Commission’s attention, the Commission sought legal advice on whether an offence had been committed, by whom, and what charges if any should be laid.
On 10 November 2010, the following charges were laid against Huljich Wealth Management and its director Mr Peter Huljich:
· 2 charges under s 58, Securities Act 1978, for the distribution of a misleading prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009;
· 6 charges under s 59, Securities Act 1978, for the distribution of misleading
· investment statements.
The charges relate principally to unit price performance graphs contained in the Huljich KiwiSaver Scheme prospectuses and investment statements that portrayed the Scheme as having significantly outperformed other KiwiSaver Schemes. However, the Commission alleged that prospectuses and investment statements failed to disclose that the performance of the Scheme had been materially inflated by a series of related party payments, made at the direction of Mr Peter Huljich.
I further understand there was insufficient evidence available to the Commission to prove to the requisite criminal standard that either Mr Banks or Dr Brash was involved in these related party payments.
I am satisfied that the position of both Mr Banks and Dr Brash was carefully considered by the Securities Commission and that competent advice was received in relation to the entities against whom charges ought to be brought.
Thank you for your interest in this matter.
I note that, for example, the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme ‘Registered Prospectus’, dated 18 September 2009, (pg1 – APPENDIX “A”) which contained the ‘untrue’ unit price performance graphs (pg 5 – APPENDIX “B”, was signed by all three Directors (pg 42 – APPENDIX “C”)
I also note that s. 58 (3) of the Securities Act 1978, is, in my considered opinion, very clear regarding the criminal liability for ‘misstatement’ in ‘advertisement or registered prospectus’, in that EVERY person who signed the prospectus, commits an offence:
58 Criminal liability for misstatement in advertisement or registered prospectus
(3) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, where a registered prospectus that includes an untrue statement is distributed, every person who signed the prospectus, or on whose behalf the registered prospectus was signed for the purposes of section 41(1)(b) of this Act, commits an offence.
(4) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (3) of this section if the person proves either that the statement was immaterial or that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe, and did, up to the time of the distribution of the prospectus, believe that the statement was true.
(5) Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment to—
(i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years; or
(ii) a fine not exceeding $300,000 and, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued; or
(b) on summary conviction to—
(i) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; or
(ii) a fine not exceeding $300,000 and, if the offence is a continuing one, to a further fine not exceeding $10,000 for every day or part of a day during which the offence is continued.
So – why were Donald Thomas Brash and John Archibald Banks, as fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Limited, who signed the same Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme ‘Registered Prospectus’, dated 18 September 2009 as Peter Karl Christopher Huljich, not equally charged, particularly given that it was in their supposedly astute business acumen, that the investing public were led to believe that they could have confidence?
Were Donald Thomas Brash, former Leader of the National Party and John Archibald Banks, former National Government Minister (of Police and Local Government), effectively protected from prosecution because of their political connections at the highest levels?
Because, quite frankly, in my considered opinion, that’s how it appears, particularly now that the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes, has confirmed that:
“ (the) FMA does not consider you have any basis on which to suggest it should bring proceedings against either Mr Banks or Dr Brash in relation to Huljich Wealth Management.”
I look forward to your confirmation, in writing, within 7 days, that the same charges that were laid against Peter Karl Christopher Huljich by the former Securities Commission will be laid against Donald Thomas Brash and John Archibald Banks, by the Serious Fraud Office.
I have checked today, and can confirm that the Finance Markets Authority has all the former Securities Commission documents which were used to enforce the Securities Act 1978 provisions against ONE of the Huljich Wealth Management Directors – Peter Huljich.
All I’m asking for, in the first instance, is that the same legal action is equally taken against Donald Thomas Brash and John Archibald Banks.
The required ‘homework’ has obviously already been done, by the Securities Commission.
In my considered opinion, there is significant and growing public interest in this matter, both nationally and internationally.
Surely – there will not be much work required by the Serious Fraud Office to promptly lay the same charges against Donald Thomas Brash and John Archibald Banks?
‘ONE LAW FOR ALL’?
Is ‘justice’ against ‘white collar crime’ going to be done and be seen to be done?
Secondly, I would like the SFO to formally investigate why the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes has chosen NOT to equally apply the same ‘law’ to has NOT ensured the application of the same law equally and consistently to ALL three former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Dr Don Brash, John Banks and Peter Huljich. Or is this a matter for the NZ Police?
In my considered opinion, the failure of the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes to NOT to equally apply the same ‘law’ to has NOT ensured the application of the same law equally and consistently to ALL three former Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, Dr Don Brash, John Banks and Peter Huljich, is a arguably a form of ‘corrupt practice’.
I understand that the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes was appointed by the Finance Markets Authority Establishment Board, who were effectively National Party ‘appointees’, ‘hand-picked’ by the National Government Minister of Commerce (and Justice) Simon Power.
Is this why the CEO of the Finance Markets Authority, Sean Hughes, has been less than vigorous, as it were, in ensuring that the same law is equally applied to the former Leader of the National Party – Don Brash, and the former National Government Minister of Police and Local Government – John Banks?
Independent Candidate for Epsom.
Campaigning against ‘white collar’ crime, corruption (and its root cause – privatisation), and ‘corporate welfare’.
Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
Attendee: Transparency International’s 14th International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010