PM heckled over Allan Hubbard affair
Prime Minister John Key was called a liar when he fronted a meeting in Timaru last night packed with vocal Allan Hubbard supporters.
The Government placed Mr Hubbard, his wife, Jean, and related companies into statutory management last year.
Mr Hubbard headed the Timaru-based South Canterbury Finance which the Government spent $1.7 billion bailing-out when it failed.
"When I see an old man get rolled and robbed and accused of fraud when in fact he's one of the most honourable men in the country I am concerned," Radio New Zealand reported one man saying at the 500-strong meeting.
Mr Key said South Canterbury Finance had been going to collapse for a long time.
"The entire time I've been Prime Minister I've had Treasury in my office week after week, month after month telling me South Canterbury Finance was going bankrupt."
He said when the Serious Fraud Office got involved he had to be dispassionate.
Someone in the audience yelled the Prime Minister was lying.
"I like Allan Hubbard. I do not get up in the morning trying to find people to go after," Mr Key said.
Some at the meeting said Hubbard supporters were crazy and were not facing the facts.
A woman told Radio New Zealand; "John Key's a w..ker".
Mr Key said he accepted people had different views.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions38
John
It's about time you stopped this nonsense and let Hubbard live out his life.
The Blue bloods have now destroyed this guy and his wealth - there is no point also killing him.
Politically you have problems in the South island as long as you keep publicy destroying this man.
Why aren't you also crucifying Mark Hotchin and Jock Hobbs?? They have committed 1000 times more sins than Hubbard - and they personally gained from their sins.
Be consistent Mr Key
Last year when Russell McVeigh made a press release that their fees were not being paid I was clear that Mr Hubbards treatments was now clearly worse than our worst criminals.
Specifically that is he is being denied a defence which is a basic civil right in this country.
The fact that this matter is not still resolved is of grave concern with respect to the carriage of justice in this country.
I find it startling that government departments and the statutory managers think they can do a better job of running Mr Hubbards affairs when this fairly straightforward matter now requires the ongoing attention of the courts.
I think it is time that harder questions be asked of these groups and it be clear to the public that the same standard is being asked of them that they demand of Mr Hubbard.
Aaahh the Hubbadites. Crazy as rabid dogs, impossible to rationalise with. Meanwhile the rest of New Zealand has to pick up the bill for their membership of this infamous cult.
I'll cut Hubbard a little slack when we - the taxpayers of NZ - get our bailout money back.
Jock Hobbs and Mark Hotchin???
Prosecute the old man already!
But I think John Key handled this with balance. I don't want to lean on an old man...but the least you can say is he didn't do his homework, he trusted too much. I think that one that is very out of the limelight, the young gun (or son of..) that was SC CEO before Sandy Maier just disappeared. I have some questions for him. As I have some questions for a bunch of "managers" there. But SFO procedures are too slow, too toothless, and yes, I agree, crucify Hotchin, as he is ostensibly a crook.
But Hubbardites should just resign themselves to at least recognize their hero was , in substance, a gullible old man.
You have to be dispassionate. If Allan plays with the big boys he's subject to all the rules and regs of the game. End of story. You can't be a big time businessman one minute and then a little old man the next.
"Our minds are made up, don't confuse us with facts !!"
(Hubbard supporters)
"Mr Key said Treasury had been warning him about SCF's state for more than a year before it went into receivership on August 31." Interesting! When will the truth be told? That's all many are asking. Why were the "big guns" already in place well before Aug 31? Locals had uncovered them. Who was Sandy Maier really working for? Never been answered!
8 months - and very little information or reason to believe that the Statutory Management of an individual is appropriate - or legal. Perhaps this is why Simon Power, who made the recommendation is standing down. Saying that Treasury officials visited weekly when everyone knows that they are a bunch of uncommercial bureaucrats is not encouraging. PM - with all due respect stand up and front up with the reasons why this Statutory Management is still in place - whether it is now or ever was legal. Also release the information how much the Stat Managers have taken off the table in fees.
Why is NBR reporting this stuff when it hasn't yet completed reporting the Russell-McVeagh application in the High court from last week?
I wasn't at the meeting so I don't know all that was said - but I do want to take issue with the people who criticise Allan Hubbard and his supporters.
Firstly, I note that critics of Hubbard and his supporters invariably resort to name calling, insults, put-downs and personal attacks - instead of sticking to the facts of the specific issue being debated.
They also invariably seem to fall back on demanding their money back before engaging in any kind of worthwhile debate - as if their tax dollars are somehow more valuable than the tax dollars of people who see things differently to them.
Hardly worthwhile conduct if you expect people to take your views more seriously than Hubbard's supporters.
Secondly - Hubbard's core supporters are not defending Allan Hubbard. They are defending the principles of fairness, transparency, and natural justice - none of which have occurred in the way Allan Hubbard has been treated.
It seems incredibly easy for critics of Hubbard and his supporters to dismiss his right to natural justice and answers - but in doing so they effectively deny themselves and every other citizen the same basic rights.
We do not live in a society (yet) where certain people have the right to deny other's the fairness, balance and natural justice they are entitled to - just because it suits their particular agenda.
Not one of us, who "supports" Allan Hubbard, actually defends HIM. Even I would admit he was too trusting, and that it has cost him dearly (I have told him that to his face, among other things).
What we are defending, is a system that is free from corruption, and free from the PERCEPTION of corruption. We are defending fairness. We are defending balance. We are defending transparency. We are defending the power of the judiciary over the decision making ability of politicians and civil servants. We are defending a requirement for balanced media reporting if we are to have true justice and democracy. We are defending basic civil rights - which apply to EVERYONE - not just to the people we "like". We are defending the Bill of Rights - which has been utterly trashed in this process.
No matter HOW MUCH money was involved here - the Bill of Rights comes first - whether you or I like it or not.
It simply has to, if we are ever to have a civilised society, founded on principles of equality and fairness. It has to apply to all citizens equally - no matter how much they might piss us off.
That - and that alone - is what we are defending.
The fact that Allan Hubbard is the subject matter is simply irrelevant - injustice is injustice, and all of us are equal under the law.
For his critics to deny Allan Hubbard his basic civil rights, cancels out any entitlement they have to the same rights.
They can't have it both ways.
"When I see an old man get rolled and robbed and accused of fraud when in fact he's one of the most honourable men in the country I am concerned,"
Should have read
"When I see an old man get rolled and robbed and accused of fraud AND THE HARD WORKING TAX PAYER BAILS THEM ALL OUT TO THE TUNE OF BILLIONS I am concerned THAT THEY ARENT A LITTLE MORE GRATEFUL!"
I've had a gutsful of completely ungrateful SCF / Hubbard supporters.
Give us our money back you backward inbred hill billies.
There are going to be a lot of RED faces when the jig saw is put together.
You cannot run a business like a Merry go round, and that is what Sth Cant Finance was, just a merry go round disposing cash to other depots at every stop, sooner or later it runs out, just like it did.
The other problem was the Company computer, it was 80+ years old, and never was upgraded and was running out of memory.
Thank goodness someone stepped in and halted the carnage, it was almost a steam train without brakes.
A lot of people are going to loose a lot of money, but some is better than all.
Tell me Paddy - which "facts" do you refer to? Do you mean "allegations?". No facts have been presented against Allan Hubbard yet - only allegations. The statutory managers reports are not facts - they are allegations. No supporting evidence has been presented to verify them. The accusation of fraud has not been proven. Even if he is charged, his innocence or guilt is not a fact until it is proven beyond doubt. Until then - it remains an allegation. So, when you talk about 'facts'........it would appear you are confusing facts with your opinion.
Hubbards critics can winge all they like but the fact is that his legal defence is compromised.
Thats a reflection on us not Hubbard.
As I see it Mr Hubbard has adequate legal representation and $2m of legal fees to Russell McVeagh must have ensured that. They are my lawyers and I have confidence they are doing a good job for him. The real issues are (a) was SCF going to collapse or did the government intervene too soon? the answer is yes it was going to collapse under the weight of an enormous amount of bad lending (b) was there a significant amount of inter company interaction between the various Hubbard entities - answer yes (c) did the inter entity transactions mislead the investing public and thus be illegal- answer probably, time will tell (d) did management/directors of SCF undertake illegal warehousing of bad loans - answer just look at the Hyatt transaction. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Hubbard is a good person, unfortunately this does not exempt him from the law if he has broken it. I think that he has a fair shot with Russell McVeagh defending him. For them to rack up $2m means that they are spending a huge amount of time arguing complicated issue, this means it is not black and white ie there is something for him to answer to or defend himself on.
Hubbard supporters can defend whatever wooly concepts they like.
Statutory managers are defending the rights of the investors. They have managed to get Hubbard to sign over the equity in farms that hubbard bought through undocumented loans to himself to Aorangi investors. What would have happened if Hubbard had died? Think his numerous offspring that currently aren't paying interest on their loans to Aorangi would have willingly signed over their inheritance? Hubbard injection of equity = Aorangi loan to Hubbard.
Second, they stopped Hubbard making crazy decisions to keep his empire afloat, like transferring assets out of southbury into scf.
Personally, I think statutory management shouldn't have been incurred because the investors are obviously so stupid they can't comprehend these facts and deserve their fate but who am I to judge?
Bud just because theres an invoice doesnt mean theres going to be payment. Particularly in this case where determinations regarding liability for the bill are likley to affect quantum.
The higher it gets the less likely RM will continue to serve unrestricted. Lawyers arnt allowed to speculate in NZ under the professional code of conduct.
Surely thats why they made the press release in December and things have now gone to court?
How can you not see this is an issue for Hubbard?
Paul, you are right going forward, if the court does not allow further payment of fees then I am with you that he needs further representation. The point I am making is that he has already received $2m of legal advice (as that is the time they have billed) in anyones terms that is significant legal representation. Whether they get paid or not he has received the advice.
I would of thought its assumptions like those that could land you in statutory management Bud.
Paul, sorry I don't understand your point here? Am I wrong has he not received $2m of legal advice? Send in the Stat Managers I'm ready.
north isand voters calling .. we don't give a rats about .... whats his name Allan who?
Seems like the PM has implicitly acknowledged that the Aorangi statutory management was inextricably linked to the reports that he was getting on SCF - something that was denied at the time.
Anonymous @12.36 yes statutory managemnet is to protect investors but there must be fraud before it can be invoked and there is still no evidence of this. SFO has dragged the chain for almost a year now and are using the feeble excuse of the court case to determine how much RM are to get paid as an excuse to delay it further. They have already received RMs submissions so this is not good reason for a delay. I believe they are waiting till everyone is gone, Brotherway is gone, so is Plane Jane and Simon Power is on the way out.
You may have a point that there would have been a huge mess if Mr Hubbard had died, but that does not give the govt the right to put him into statutory management. The ends cannot justify the means.
You might not care as North island voters
But John Key might when November rolls around
Bud , no aspersions intended. I was attempting dark humour raising the question whether we live in a country where assumptions in the course of business however reasonable might land one in statutory management. As always humour explained seems a bit lame.
Not so funny for Hubbard though who continues to languish in the land of fair play's sin bin with no explanation pending and the game well and truly moving on and after game drinks being quietly funded out of his gym bag.
The question is will the SFO find Mr Hubbard, and others because he's not alone in this) guilty (and can prove such) ? If they do then the Govt has done the only think they could have.
Truth is, he and others will be found guilty, the shame is, until some others who are more typical, there's no way Hubbard did it for personal gain. That mitigate some of the issues in my mind, but it certainly can't for the Govt who have a responsibility to up hold the law and protect investors
Paul, roger that, Mr Hubbard is lucky to have you and the other supporters firmly in his camp. Can't quite get there myself.
Try harder. You can't hide the truth. The old 'cult' thing has worn thin. The majority of those interviewed on morning report National radio think Hubbard has been done over.
If Treasury hadn't turned down a viable offer, just so they could keep Hubbards stuff, there needn't have been such a bailout. Ask Simpson Grierson. They received $200,000 due diligence money for the deal that could have avoided the SCF receivership. Poor old Hubbard just didn't know that it was Botherway's & Maier's mates firm.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The statutory managers reports have all been complete bollocks, not even using Hubbards accounting technique, so they can portray the worse picture possible. Sadly for Hubbard, he is easily misled because he has faith in the lies they tell him. He's just too trusting. Read the reserve bank emails. The backbones to the story are there. Key even said there is likely to be no money left last night? Why would he say that, while he insists he knows nothing about the investigation?
ou are so correct; just imagine how an investor in Bridgecorp or Hanover feels when they lost their principle and interest, whereas investors with millions in SCF receive all the principle back with interest. The extension of the retail deposit guarantee to include all deposit, that is deposits over one million dollars, and unsecured bonds was obscene, this extended to the retail deposits guarantee was to simply look after the privileged wealthy. This is an extreme example of privatizing profits and socializing losses. As if to rub salt into the wounds of the Bridgecorp and Hanover investors, they are now expected via the tax system to pay for the reimbursement of millions plus interest to the millionaire investors in South Canterbury Finance.
You are deluded if you think the SCF investors were millionaires.
Many are elderly, veterans, retired farmers, widows and amputees. That's the reason the govt is getting away with this crime, and the spin doctors know it. You are gullible and think the media is delivering you truth?
There are about 400 SCF preferential shareholders that lost everything. Not all SCF investors were covered by the guarantee.
One widow I spoke to a couple of nights ago can't access her late husband's inheritance because Hubbard is trustee and the statutory management means that Grant Thornton have her cornered too. She also lost alot with the preferential shares.
Just remember, it wasn't SCF that went into statutory management, in spite of the reserve bank emails revealing that they were discussing it after John Key went to see Hubbard in mid 2009. It was 2 other private managed funds.after a single anonymous complaint was made on 28 February 2010, the same day Kathryn Rodgers left the Securities Commission. This was also just after Samford Lee Maier jnr was 'hired' and CEO and also just after Simon Botherways brother went into receivership for his SCF debt.
How could anybody not believe in the Jim Jones of Timaru? Bring on the trestle tables, orange juice, cyanide and paper cups I say! Rejoice in our South Pacific Guyana!
I am still trying to assess the Hubbard supporters argument. That widows, amputees, retired farmers etc have been caught in the fallout is sad, but how is this any one other than Hubbards fault?
Excatly what these widows, amputees and retiredd farmers were doing investing into preference shares is beyond me. I call bullshit. If they were investing in preference shares of a finance company under their own volition, caveat emptor. If they were advised, and wer not diversified, sue.
What role does the government have in keeping sick and ailing finance companies alive. SCF investors should be grateful they were government guaranteed so they got their money back.
Aorangi investors arent so fortunate. Hubbard was hell bent on keeping scf alive no matter what the cost and, if you hadn't already clicked, much of the property that Aorangi lent out on was also lent out on by SCF, why SCF and the stat managers are going to court about this at the moment. Hubbard made the numbers up as he went along and took money from here to pay there. That the government have put a stop to this madman is well overdue, and deserves copious praise.
SCF was about to recover when Hubbard was placed into statutory management (based on a single, unsigned, anonymous complaint), curiously timed with the resignation of a SecCom member and his decision to transfer Helicopters and Scales.
Offers to recapitalise SCF were on the table, and more came before the receivership, that were never brought to light.
You would have to look at the figures, and the information like we have to understand the injustice of the statutory management and the conflicts of interest of Key players in plain English.
Check out the reserve bank email drop for a start. There is plenty of information available. Ulterior motives are all over the players in this chess game.
Madman? You clearly do not know him. He's the most honest kiwi in business, or was... and therein lies the challenge for the perpertrators.
Hubbards will left the bulk of his fortune to charity. The government couldn't have that when there were billions at stake for them to sweep up. Ask Korda Mentha, McGrath Nicol, Goldman Sachs and Deutchbank.
Where are the gold stocks? Where is NZ's biggest apple grower now? Where are the Helicopters? Follow the path of greed to the truth.
Anonymous. You never gave any money out of your own pocket anyway. It is a figure of speach used by the media , simply put, 1.8 billion dollars divided by the population of New Zealand equals approx $400 which you never gave in the first place.
I am thoroughly sick of people who have 1% of the information on this subject who bleat on at the South Islanders as though we owe the North Islanders some sort of gratitude for ALL OF NZ bailing out SCF.
I think the only backwards people are the ones who believe the story that has been spun about SCF and the Hubbards and cast judgments based on what has been published by the media.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below