The Dotcom Banks donation

April 28th, 2012 at 10:30 am by David Farrar

David Fisher reports:

Act leader asked for a $50,000 political donation to be split into two parts so it could be made anonymously, says and one other witness.

This is unusual, as splitting the donation has absolutely no impact on whether or not it can be anonymous. The level for disclosure is $1,000.

Dotcom said the request was made on April 15, 2010, when Mr Banks was preparing to campaign for the Auckland mayoralty.

He said there were at times three other people in the room while the donation was discussed – and Mr Banks rang later to thank him for it.

The allegation comes after police were asked to investigate Mr Banks’ listing of a $15,000 donation from SkyCity as “anonymous”.

I regard this allegation as far more serious than the Sky City one. As far as I know no one has suggested Banks knew personally of the Sky City donation, which allow him to declare it as anonymous.

If the allegations are correct and that Banks both solicited the donation, and was made aware of when it had been made, and then thanked the donor for it – well I find it hard to see how you can claim that “the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation”, which is the test in the Local Electoral Act.

The only wriggle room might be that if Banks did not know of the amount donated. He could claim he was aware of him being a donor but did not know how much, so hence for that specific donation did not know who made it. Personally I regard that as still being against the spirit of the law, but courts decide on the wording.

This again reinforces to me the need to have much tighter donation transparency requirements for local government elections.

Political candidates are required by law to declare donations if they know who made them. Failure to do so is punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment and up to a $10,000 fine.

A vacancy is automatically created if any MP is convicted of an offence punishable by two years or more, no matter what punishment they get.

In the case of Mr Banks, a conviction would place at risk his Epsom seat under the Electoral Act and force a byelection. The loss would leave the Government exposed, with its 59 votes in the 121-seat Parliament supplemented only by United Future’s one and the Maori Party’s three.

It is worth noting that a complaint has not yet been laid over the Dotcom donation, once it has it will then be referred to the Police, they will have to investigate and decide whether to lay charges, and if they do then it goes to a court to decide.

Based on their usual speed with electoral issues, this could take some time. If all this did happen and Banks was convicted, then I doubt the overall Government majority would be at risk, as National would win an Epsom by-election with ease.

Tags: ,

86 Responses to “The Dotcom Banks donation”

  1. Chuck Bird (4,612 comments) says:

    “then I doubt the overall Government majority would be at risk, as National would win an Epsom by-election with ease.”

    David, if this were to happen could National win Epsom and not lose a list MP?

    [DPF: Yes. If Paul Goldsmith stood and won, then National would gain a new List MP and go to 60 MPs. If National stood someone else and they won, then they go from 59 to 60 MPs. ]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    @Chuck Bird 10:49 am

    No, if a seat changes hands it does not result in the Party winning it losing a list MP. This is one of the issues currently under discussion in the MMP review.

    However, if Paul Goldsmith (or another sitting list MP) were the candidate and won Epsom, National would not gain a list MP to replace him in that capacity. That would cost the Government one vote in Parliament, which on contentious issues like asset sales and the SkyCity dirty deal could be crucial.

    [DPF: You are wrong. If Goldsmith won and then resigned as a List MP before being sworn in as an electorate MP, then National gains an extra List MP]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Vinick (214 comments) says:

    Quite the opposite, Chuck. If National ran Paul Goldsmith (a list MP) his position (assuming he won) would be taken by the next person on the National Party list – at the moment this is Aaron Gilmore.

    Similar situation in the 1998 Taranaki-King Country byelection in which the ACT candidate Owen Jennings came close to beating National’s Shane Ardern. Had Jennings won, as he was a list MP the next person on ACT’s list (Anne Dill) would have come into Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Vinick (214 comments) says:

    Incorrect, Toad. You are forgetting the “Tizard-bomb”, often quoted as a reason for not giving Phil Twyford the nomination in the My Albert byelection. Had he won, Judith Tizard would have come back into Parliament on the list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. jims_whare (397 comments) says:

    I would say that if Banks does get shown to be guilty of wrong doing and is forced to resign (not guaranteed) then ACT would need to pack up and call it a day.
    National would then have to figure out how to get the Conservatives in to power as a coalition partner for 2014 – it will be an interesting next 2 years in politics!

    And throw into the mix the leadership question at labours door (a party full of flakes and has beens) the parliament after 2014 will be an interesting mix – Greens more than Labour??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Mr Gronk (45 comments) says:

    My understanding is that the posters (except toad) are correct. If an electorate MP resigns or is forced out, and is replaced by an MP from a different party in the ensuing by-election, all other MPs remain where they are, even if that results in some loss of proportionality (or, if a party below the threshold loses a sole electorate MP, a number of list MPs who suddenly “have no right” to be there). If the winning candidate was already a list MP, though, the next available list candidate comes into Parliament.

    Hence, when it looked like Paula Bennett might lose Waitakere after the fact, the point was made that the final composition of Parliament would depend on whether she was forced out by a judicial recount (which happens before the results are finalised and Parliament meets) or an electoral petition (which happens once Parliament is already up and running). In the former case, Labour would have won the electorate seat at the price of a list top-up seat, and National would have got one more list seat in exchange for its loss. In the latter, Labour (assuming it won the ensuing by-election) would have kept all its list and electorate seats, gained Waitakere, and so increased its overall seat count at National’s expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. AG (1,751 comments) says:

    @Toad: “However, if Paul Goldsmith (or another sitting list MP) were the candidate and won Epsom, National would not gain a list MP to replace him in that capacity. That would cost the Government one vote in Parliament, which on contentious issues like asset sales and the SkyCity dirty deal could be crucial.”

    Wrong – a list MP can run as the by-election candidate, and if they win on the polling day resign their seat in the House before the final declaration of results (which happens about 2 weeks after polling day), thus allowing a new list MP to be appointed while they then reenter the House when declared the winner of the by-election.

    This is one of the issues the Electoral Commission is looking at in its review.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Vinick (214 comments) says:

    @jims_whare

    The Conservatives? While i’m sure the majority of them are good Christians, i’d hope National wouldn’t assist any party with an anti-semite in top ten.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Dick Prebble (60 comments) says:

    National would then have to figure out how to get the Conservatives in to power as a coalition partner for 2014 – it will be an interesting next 2 years in politics!

    You mean that self-righteous group of Christians who think they’re more important than they are. National would not waste time on meatheads like Craig and would probably more likely just try to subtly increase United Future’s vote. You just can’t deal with idiots who think that the nation’s biggest issue of all time is smacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    The Conservatives??? Give it up Jims whare.
    They failed & have gone bush since the election.
    If this has wings, ACT will be toast, once again by ex Nats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Mr Gronk (45 comments) says:

    The cynic in me suggests that the “usual speed with electoral issues” is due to a belief that political stability is more important than white-collar accountability (unless the offence is absolutely egregious). I’m not a betting man, but I’d wager that if there is to be a guilty verdict, it will get handed down just after Parliament is dissolved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    Oops, my bad. Should check rather than relying on memory.

    Yes, the Nats would get Aaron Gilmore back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Radman (129 comments) says:

    Gee, so many permetations!

    Very strange to see Toad wrong. The Greens are so self-righteous I doubt they’ve ever been wrong. Goodness, if Toad cannot even basic MMP maths right what chance does that party have of running our country!! Bloody hell!!

    This, of course, is not about Epsom now. It’s about Epsom then. The government’s majority cannot be affected now, but if there were a byelection, and the Nats won it, in 2015 they have no coalition partners!

    As for the Conservatives, I’d rather eat glass than see the Nats govern with them! They’re full of twats!! Oh yeah, and kevin Campbell!! And also Kiwi Party rejects and Destiny Party rejects. And those corrput New Citizen party rejects. Fuck that!! And they’ve got a poll fraudster and a liar as a leader!

    I’d like to see the Conservatives go the same way as Act!!

    Back to Banks. Isn’t it usual for a campaign manager or fundraiser to do the donation bidding? Who was in charge of this for Banks? It’s very unusual for a candidate to make these approaches, especially to someone so controversial. What was the campaign manger advising him to do? And who was it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (10,066 comments) says:

    Quite so Radman. And it’s also interesting to note that the Greens seem to be exempt from the presumption of innocence, the “golden thread of the justice system” as Mortimer’s Horace Rumpole called it. I took Toad to task on Twitter this morning, he having triumphantly already tried, convicted and executed Mr Banks, despite the fact that there hasn’t even been a complaint laid about the Dotcom donation, much less an investigation or a decision to prosecute. The Toad has jumped the shark!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RightNow (6,621 comments) says:

    Banks and Brash, party killers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    @Radman 11:24 am

    Back to Banks. Isn’t it usual for a campaign manager or fundraiser to do the donation bidding? Who was in charge of this for Banks?

    Michelle Boag!

    Okay, I made a mistake. We all do that occasionally. Gimme a break.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. gump (1,444 comments) says:

    It isn’t looking good for Banks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    Goddamn it. Why can’t national just have a decent and stable coalition party, is it too much to ask for. What is up with these Act people. They all seem like corrupt backroom handjob pricks. I thought Banks at least was above board. Stuff the conservative party. I’d rather work with the Greens.

    At least the Greens don’t have that weird pedo grin that smears the face of sanctimonious arch christian types whose focus is the bottoms of NZ’s children.

    Greens have the smug amused sanctimony of the uniquely and mistakenly enlightened, but at least it’s hedged by a paradigm that has to include at least a modicum of respect for others opinions and love for everyone etcetera kumbaya,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    DPF


    “The only wriggle room might be that if Banks did not know of the amount donated. He could claim he was aware of him being a donor but did not know how much, so hence for that specific donation did not know who made it. Personally I regard that as still being against the spirit of the law, but courts decide on the wording.”

    That only works if you didn’t actively solicit donations in the specified amount. If Banks didn’t do that then how did Dotcom know to make donations in the amount of 25k? Which coincidentally just happens to be the amount of three other “anonymous” donations, and it is this amount which is the only thing which gives Banks plausible deniability.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Radman (129 comments) says:

    Very gracious of you to admit you were wrong Toad! Well done!

    Michelle Boag was in charge of Banks fundraising? I didn’t know that. She is turning into a political lepper – don’t go near her or you’ll catch something!!!

    Banks is a very experienced politician. I am surprised he talked donations to Kim DotCon. He should have just said “I’ll get someone to call you”, and walked out of the room. This is very surprising!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. bhudson (4,732 comments) says:

    If Banks didn’t do that then how did Dotcom know to make donations in the amount of 25k?

    It is well within the realms of possibility that the person running his campaign, and not Banks himself, requested the donations be split. So quite possibly correct that Banks didn’t know that 2 donations of $25k had been made. Also possible that he had been told that Dotcom had made a “good donation” and so should be telephoned and thanked.

    Evasiveness around the meetings, events and transportation might well prove to be more challenging to deal with (politically) than the donations. [i haven't seen the Campbell piece so can't really speculate how difficult it might prove to be.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott Chris (5,849 comments) says:

    Well, ACT’s coffin required a lotta nails, but this could be the final one.

    If you put a helmet and moustache on Dotcom, he’d make rather a convincing Sgt Schlutz although alas for Banksie, the catchphrase I see nothing no longer applies apparently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Scott Chris (5,849 comments) says:

    Michelle Boag was in charge of Banks fundraising? I didn’t know that. She is turning into a political lepper

    Thing about Boag type personalities that continually shoot from the hip is that eventually they’ll shoot themselves in the foot. Repeatedly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. burt (7,728 comments) says:

    So… Following from the Winston Peters school of accountability – Banks might be required to re-file a few campaign returns. That’s a pretty serious punishment…. I hope Banks can manage it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Radman,


    He should have just said “I’ll get someone to call you”, and walked out of the room.

    I wouldn’t walk out on someone who had sent their private helicopter to pick me up. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. David Garrett (6,175 comments) says:

    I have it on good authority that the Dotcom donation(s) have emerged because Banks didn’t want to know the fat man in his hour of need in Mt Eden…Apparently Mr Dotcom was being badly treated in some way and asked who the MP for the Mt Eden Prison area was….but said MP was most ungracious to his beneficient donor, and didn’t want a bar of him…didnt even know him…Said beneficient donor took great umbridge at this…as you would …and decided to tell all…

    This is going to be another of those “a week’s a long time in politics” few days…Mr Key is perched right on the horns of a dilemma; stand Banks down as Minister and risk him having the toys thrown out of the cot in spectacular fashion..or leave Banks and his precious vote onside, and endure days of “Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?” questions followed up by Labour drip feeding poisonous doses of “the story” over many days…just as in the Nick Smith downfall…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. David Garrett (6,175 comments) says:

    that’s..ah..umbrage of course….sorry; getting all excited here…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    bhudson,


    It is well within the realms of possibility that the person running his campaign, and not Banks himself, requested the donations be split.

    The realm of possibility is a big realm so I have to agree. But if we assume this is true, how would that have played out?

    Dotcom offers to make a donation so Banks promptly exits the room while the CFO and Dotcom arrange for the donations to be “anonymous”. Within the space of three days (perhaps the time it took for the cheques to clear) Banks is unable to discern where these mysterious donations of 25k came from but is aware that Dotcom made some sort of generous donation.

    Somewhat convoluted it would seem. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    David Garrett,

    Thanks for that. I was wondering what Dotcom’s motive was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Leaping Jimmy (15,866 comments) says:

    That makes sense DG. What a fool Banks was. Talk about an idiot. Let’s see.

    You have spent a lifetime in politics so we can assume part of the basics is knowing the details of the laws around donations whether local or national.

    You have multiple meetings with someone who later turns out to be a bit of a political hot potato and before all this happened you ask him for money and then thank him for it. It wasn’t just one meeting and a casual conversation. This means two things. It could not slip one’s mind and it would be hard to deny if it went public in an embarrassing way. Which is a potential factor given the hot potato element.

    You knowingly or casually sign off your election return – let’s say it was casual. But since you asked hot potato to give you two donations you know his name wasn’t on it.

    Hot potato requests help. You say no.

    You act surprised that hot potato would do what he has done and that the media are at all interested in something minor like this.

    Crikey.

    Doesn’t he have ANY political instincts?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    bhudson,

    Err, I should’ve said “the campaign manager and Dotcom’s CFO arrange for the donations to be anonymous”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..[i haven't seen the Campbell piece so can't really speculate how difficult it might prove to be.].”

    so why the hell are you pontificating..?

    here ya go..!

    watch and squirm..or delight…(depending on yr political-view..)

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Banks-knew-about-anonymous-Dotcom-donation—reports/tabid/817/articleID/252130/Default.aspx

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Perhaps he just suffers from that old time politicians disease. A huge sense of entitlement Jimmy. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. bhudson (4,732 comments) says:

    Weihana,

    It wouldn’t have had to have been that convoluted. Technically Banks could have been in a meeting where Dotcom offered to donate – he could even have said “I’ll give you $50k”. If, subsequently, his campaign person had talked to Dotcom and asked that it was structured differently (particularly if the payments were in a name other than Dotcom – say Megaupload?) then Banks could truthfully claim no to have knowledge of the specific donations as the donation he had actual knowledge about never actually occurred.

    Or perhaps I’ve read too many Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy novels over the years. Not to mention The Prince…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Particles of enlightenment turned into lumps of shit again magpie! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    the vid of banks proposing a toast to dotcom is particularly delicious…

    ..dead-man/party walking..!

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Doug (405 comments) says:

    So does this mean Labour might have shoot themselves in the foot?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. bhudson (4,732 comments) says:

    Philu,

    If you hadn’t spent years butchering the English language you may have been able to retain sufficient comprehension to grasp that the bracketed comment was related to the preceding point that the evasiveness (as noted by others) might prove to be more of a political challenge for Banks than explaining away a couple of donations (of which the mechanics could easily have been constructed to enable a technically truthful denial of knowledge.)

    Perhaps you might stick to matters that are within your grasp…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..Or perhaps I’ve read too many Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy novels over the years. Not to mention The Prince…..”

    you share that low-culture with yr leader…

    ..and don’t bring prince into it..!

    ..it’s nothing to do with that little-genius..!

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. marcw (219 comments) says:

    @ DG: So if Nick Smith helps a constituent out over a contentious ACC matter, he gets the boot. And if John Banks doesn’t help out a constituent over a contentious legal matter, he gets the boot? Geez, glad I’m not a politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bhudson (4,732 comments) says:

    you share that low-culture with yr leader…

    What an elitist snob you are phil. Not surprising you are a Labour/greens adherent

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Anyway. Who cares. (Left wing wankers).

    Banks is utterly expendable to Key, as he never brought another ACT MP with him and National will piss in in an Epsom by-election.

    All in all he is just an embarrassment in a teapot that is best forgotten! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Leaping Jimmy (15,866 comments) says:

    Perhaps he just suffers from that old time politicians disease. A huge sense of entitlement Jimmy.

    Seriously though this is political risk management 101 – basic basic stuff.

    It’s not like he didn’t know it had a high potential to explode when he was turning down hot potato’s request for assistance. It’s not like he wouldn’t have thought, gee, I wonder what happens if hot potato gets all pissed off and tells them we know each other. I wonder what else hot potato might tell them?

    What sort of calculation was he making, when he was making that decision? And do we want a person like that making any sorts of calculation at the levers of power. This is like something Judith Tizard would do, it’s that bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Surely you are not suggesting that all politicians should make all their decisions based on cool, calm, clear, logic Jimmy? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Graeme Edgeler (3,261 comments) says:

    a list MP can run as the by-election candidate, and if they win on the polling day resign their seat in the House before the final declaration of results (which happens about 2 weeks after polling day), thus allowing a new list MP to be appointed while they then reenter the House when declared the winner of the by-election.

    I’ve always said that the resignation would have to be before the writ is returned, rather than before the final declaration, but I’ve understood that the Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that the resignation didn’t have to happen before then. I think that can’t be right, but I don’t get to make the call, so…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Leaping Jimmy (15,866 comments) says:

    watch and squirm..or delight…(depending on yr political-view..)

    It’s interesting phil thinks conservatives would be distressed over this development. It’s like he has no understanding that conservative ethics would favour this sort of behaviour being exposed, given it reflects incompetence, poor judgement and dishonesty at the highest levels and that such should not be tolerated not in anyone, our side or the other side.

    Of course we all know what lefty ethics are like, who can forget Hulun’s repeated edifying displays ranging from installing her own personal Police Commissioner (wasn’t that handy) to supporting a totally corrupt Foreign Minister in her last execrable term and everything in between. That’s what phil’s side does, so it’s no wonder he thinks conservative might “squirm” at this. It’s a shame isn’t it for him really. It must be horrible having such a small, nasty little mind that you can’t even comprehend the possibility that not everyone is as small minded and nasty as oneself.

    Surely you are not suggesting that all politicians should make all their decisions based on cool, calm, clear, logic Jimmy?

    It’s just so basic Johnboy. This is a calculation you could make subconsciously, without even thinking about it, on the fly, as you were deciding whether or not to help hot potato. That’s why I don’t get it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. David Garrett (6,175 comments) says:

    What do the oldtime mob guys say? Pays to remember where all the bodies are buried…and the guy who KNOWS where all the bodies are buried is a guy you pay homage to…or alternatively, have him taken out, which might not quite be Banks’ scene…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Did you sing Tenor or Soprano DG? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Polys don’t think the same as honest men like us Jimmy. Devious is a prerequisite to selection! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (6,175 comments) says:

    marcw: Well yes…but you need to remember two things: 1) Banks and Smith are both right wing polis which means they cannot get away with anything like what those on the left can..2) I understand that the help Dotcom sought was nothing to do with “a contentious legal matter” but to do with the conditions in which Dotcom was held in Mt Eden…the very kind of thing in short that polis SHOULD be quite rightly concerned about…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. David Garrett (6,175 comments) says:

    Johnboy: “Nasally baritone” I think was the diagnosis at some long ago journalism school test…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Leaping Jimmy (15,866 comments) says:

    to do with the conditions in which Dotcom was held in Mt Eden…the very kind of thing in short that polis SHOULD be quite rightly concerned about

    Exactly. The sort of thing Banks could have publicly involved himself with, no problem. Easily defended, he’s my constituent (well while he was in Mt Eden he was…) etc etc etc.

    Which makes Banks decision not to help all the more inexplicable. Perhaps he was bored with ACT and politics and wanted to spend more time at home, with no mates, and all his neighbours and everyone he meets in public for the next few years thinking there goes one A-grade dick whenever he walks out the door. That could be the reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    A song for you David. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    “..It’s interesting phil thinks conservatives would be distressed over this development…”

    are you trying to claim that all those blue-rinses in epsom who voted banks in..(at keys’-urgings..)..will be happy/indifferent about this tearing off of the mask of banks..?

    ..not to mention those who voted for him in that mayoralty race..?

    ..are you claiming they are all that relaxed about political-corruption..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Are you suggesting they will all vote Green/Labour at the upcoming by-election Magpie? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    are you claiming the whole rightwing are adherents to ‘the ends justify the means’..?

    ..(didn’t the republican party end slavery..?..it’s been a long slide..eh..?..

    ..into the current cess-pits of both the american and the nz rightwing..

    ..(with here the right having a ‘for sale’ sign hanging permanently around their knecks..and a strong stench of/from crony-capitalism..

    ..(which is just another name for corruption..)

    ..and along with it..all the intellectual-rigor of a doorknob…(c.f..the old-smiley-sot..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    it’s time for a new-nickname-competition…

    ..i’ll kick it off with the obvious:..’honest-john’..?…’mr anon’..?

    ..’i know nuth-ing!’ john’..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    Give me a balance sheet, recording your contribution to New Zealands material gain versus your draining of our assets over your miserable useless existence Magpie and if it shows you as a net profit to the nation I might take you more seriously instead of regarding you as an object of derision. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    maybe..’chopper’-banks….?…

    ..’would i lie to you? john’..?

    ..questiontime should be fun this week…

    ..if banks hasn’t already gone by then..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    so..twitchy-jim/reid is claiming moral-equivalence is rampant on the right..?

    ..that’s an interesting admission..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Leaping Jimmy (15,866 comments) says:

    are you claiming the whole rightwing are adherents to ‘the ends justify the means’..?

    I’m saying phil in my observation conservatives have ethics whereas lefties don’t and your snide sneering 2:34 is quite illustrative of your particular stance on that issue. Your opinion about what Epsom voters might think is completely worthless because you don’t understand conservatives at all.

    Every single comment I have read of yours in the last several weeks pertaining to conservative values is wrong, it’s as if you think conservative values are set by ruthless heartless bankers who do nothing but steal off of widows and orphans and that in order to be a conservative you have to be and think exactly like that as if one was a mere robot incapable of human emotion and independent thought. It’s frankly insulting, or it would be if it wasn’t so pathetic because it’s quite apparent you truly do in fact believe that and the evidence you are fucking wrong is all around you. Never in the field of human thought has someone been so profoundly wrong about so many in the face of so much counter evidence. To the extent I give a shit, my theory on the reason you think like that is because on the inside you’re a nasty small angry little man whose life really is pretty fucking lousy but instead of changing it by looking inside yourself you instead become the victim and hence blame others for your own inadequacies. Your posts show lots of venom, anger and hatred phil, you should get help. Just read your last 3-4 posts for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Johnboy (14,731 comments) says:

    No worries Jimmy. Ignore his spleen.

    I’m still waiting for the balance sheet of Magpies life!!! :) :)

    Then we can decide his worth to society! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nick K (1,053 comments) says:

    Phil – you seem to think Banks might depart as a Minister. Why? What has he done in his capacity as a Minister or MP that might bring that about?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    um..!..twitchy…you seem to be the angry one there..darling..

    ..and ‘conservative values’..now there’s an oxymoron..

    ..(maybe at one time…(c.f..republican party ending slavery)..but self-interest and greed..the stealing of the common-wealth…and fuck-everyone-else! is the modern ‘conservative’…

    ..i mean..even muldoon introduced the dpb.(.largely so women/children would not have to be forced to stay with violent men..)

    ..and the chances of the ‘modern conservative’ even contemplating that..?

    ..they don’t come within a bulls-roar of anything like that..they are just the opposite..

    ..the modern randite-conservative wants to tear that support away…and runs campaigns demonising/marginalisng/’blaming’/stigmatising those sole-parents..

    ..the modern-conservative is the ugly-conservative..

    ..given how/what they are…how can they not be..?

    ..then there is the rampant crony-capitalism/mutual-back-scratching/class-asset theft..

    ..banks is just the pimple on the boil on the carbunkle…that is the ‘modern-conservative’..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    oh..!..nick k….the stench of corruption..?

    ..and that stain spreading even further thru national..?

    ..i mean they have their own issues around that to be hosing-down..

    ..they don’t need the stinking/rotting albatross that is banks hanging around their knecks as well..

    ..you’d think..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Keeping Stock (10,066 comments) says:

    I thought you’d be out on the hikoi today Phil; or are you too institutionalised that you can’t even be bothered to do that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    Weihana (1,821) Says:
    April 28th, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Banks must go, this is bullshit.
    It seems yet another holier than thou Christian in politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Tauhei Notts (1,585 comments) says:

    The saddest part about all this is that Right Now at 11.32 a.m. is 100% correct.
    I find that sad because I really do believe that our country needs the Act Party to be strong and cohesive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Nostalgia-NZ (4,871 comments) says:

    This could be partly about the issue of Dotcom’s bad back during his time in Mt Eden, but that aside he might arguably expected Banks not to wipe his hands of him after the raid. He might have anticipated the man that raised a toast to him and his wife could have expressed public concern about the nature of the raid, the details that Mona was held at gunpoint, inquired why a more understated ‘arrest’ wasn’t considered because of Bank’s knowledge that Dotcom had always been a reasonable fellow, an investor in the Country who was apparently being made an example of in a most ‘un-New Zealand’ way instead of showing, as he did to Brash, that he was a ‘fair weather’ friend.

    Banks might also have said that while he fully supported the Law he was properly concerned that private interests were a party in the decision to prosecute Dotcom. Stating also that while he had implicit faith in the NZ Courts that the country needed to be vigilant to dangers of ‘cross border’ prosecutions where plaintiffs were in fact business empires, apparently using similar tactics to those against which they also object.

    I could go on with that but I think the drift is clear. There would have been little political risk for Banks as the public were already disquieted about what had happened to Dotcom. But that is a description of a ‘position’, which I probably improperly called ‘revenge’ on this subject earlier. If not taking that position, with the full knowledge of his relationship with Dotcom being hardly a secret, wasn’t foolish – then surely prevaricating on details that now show Banks to have been ‘forgetful’ in the worst possible way was foolish, panicked, suicide. Banksie could have just admitted the whole thing (the donations) as soon as it was leaked, and come from a position that it was all true except for the detail about the anonymity.

    At this stage it looks like check mate to Dotcom in the stakes of the game ‘you pay your bills and return favours in kind.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nick K (1,053 comments) says:

    Ahhh, Phil. You never answered the question AT ALL which we all know means you can’t and therefore by implication you kow he’s done nothing wrong as a Minister or MP. So why should he stand down?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. MikeG (391 comments) says:

    DG “right wing polis which means they cannot get away with anything like what those on the left can”

    really? If you want to try and take the moral high ground then make sure that you are actually on the high ground – the deals that the Nats have been doing recently and the actions of John Banks show very clearly that they are on no higher ground that any other politican.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. MikeG (391 comments) says:

    NK “he’s done nothing wrong as a Minister or MP”

    That has got nothing to do with it – if we can’t trust him to fill in a declaration form honestly then he shouldn’t be a Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    you are kidding..aren’t you nick k..?

    ..i know it’s yr party facing oblivion..but..seriously..?

    ..you think he’s done nothing wrong..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Muzza M (290 comments) says:

    Labour are now calling on John Key to stand down John Banks, you know like Helen Clark did to Winston Peters – NOT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. bhudson (4,732 comments) says:

    Today in the news:

    Spurning traditional politics of smear, innuendo and multi-layered standards, David Shearer called upon the Prime Minister to stand John Banks down as investigations continue into donations to his Auckland Super City mayoral campaign.

    “It is thoroughly wrong for the Prime Minister to allow him to exercise a ministerial warrant while there are alleged irregularities in his electoral return to be investigated. There is no way a Labour government would stand behind someone being investigated of improperly declaring campaign donations. Nor any other corrupt practise.”

    To illustrate his point, Mr Shearer held up a plain sign emblazoned with the word “NO”.

    His ever loyal deputy, Grant Robertson, strenuously denied the horizontal finger movement across his throat was a signal of the need to remove Mr Shearer and an impending leadership challenge on his part.

    “What absolute nonsense”, he remarked. “I was merely performing the haka kapo o pango to show my solidarity with our esteemed leader and to reinforce that the Labour Party stands against political corruption.” He did add, however, that a part of him was wishing that Shearer would put his foot in his mouth as “…at least that would shut him up.”

    When asked about the Wellington weather in closing the interview, he did comment that the capital city was still throwing up some balmy days for a BBQ.

    The Right Honourable Winston Peters (esquire) reacted with some anger and accused Mr Banks of “deliberately engaging in unsound democratic processes around the acceptance of campaign donations in order to try to impugn my reputation.” To which he added that “only a fool would propose a toast to his benefactor unless one was absolutely sure the photographers were legless at the time.”

    Russel Norman was unavailable for comment as he was, apparently, out looking for a lost flag. And Metiria Turei was busy “in the garden pruning some trees.” Or some such like.

    No one in the National-led government was available for comment. They were busy running the country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. big bruv (12,993 comments) says:

    I don’t know if Banksie is guilty or not (I suspect he is clean as he has been around long enough not to fall for a rookie mistake like this)

    However, a part of me hopes he is, then we can have a police investigation and have the cops come out with a “while there is a prima facie case it is not in the public interest to prosecute”.

    I want this to happen for no other reason than to give the scum left a little bit of their own medicine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. David Garrett (6,175 comments) says:

    Nick K: Pull out now brother…I say this in the nicest possible way…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. toad (3,668 comments) says:

    @big bruv 7:04 pm

    Did you actually see the “I don’t recall” story on Campbell Live.

    Banks’ response (or lack of response) was not one of someone with nothing to hide.

    Banks is donkey deep, and you know it, bruv. Even David Garrett gets it. Dotcom helped Banks, but in Dotcom’s time of need, banged up and being poorly treated in Mt Eden, his support for Banks was not reciprocated. So Dotcom spills the beans on Banks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Nick K (1,053 comments) says:

    David, I know the politics of it doesn’t work that way, but at the relevant time, Banks:

    a. was not a MP;
    b. was not a Minister;
    c. was not even a member of Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Nostalgia-NZ (4,871 comments) says:

    ‘Nick K (249) Says:
    April 28th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
    David, I know the politics of it doesn’t work that way, but at the relevant time, Banks:

    a. was not a MP;
    b. was not a Minister;
    c. was not even a member of Act.’

    Yes, but he is clearly either bullshitting or suffering unexplainable memory loss – whichever it might be, is reason enough for the public confidence, that he, be stood down until the situation is resolved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. marcw (219 comments) says:

    @ DG 02:50pm Sorry I just got back to reply.

    I agree to a certain extent, but my meaning of contentious in this case was in relation to the overall case – it was going “tits up” rapidly, and I think that ANY politician getting involved in any way would have been suicidal for them. Especially one who knew the fact that money had crossed palms earlier, and that fact could still (or probably would) become public knowledge. If you donate to a politician, you can bet on the fact that when the stirring starts, that the donor will be cut off faster than you can say “Owen Jennings.” Money doesn’t buy you loyalty in politics, and too many tossers find that lesson too hard to learn.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Liberal Minded Kiwi (1,563 comments) says:

    Er, Upandcomer “What is up with these Act people. They all seem like corrupt backroom handjob pricks. I thought Banks at least was above board. ”

    You mean ACTs last leader who was the ex Nat Party leader (Brash) an outsider to many of us as he was tainted from being a Nat? Or do you mean Bank, ex National Cabinet minister who is completely off ACTs political spectrum?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. big bruv (12,993 comments) says:

    Toad

    Should Banks quit then?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. David Garrett (6,175 comments) says:

    NickK : I know you prefaced your comment with a caveat about how things work differently in politics…but the criminal offending that destroyed me happened thirty years ago, and the other alleged bullshit In Tonga seven years before I became an MP…Game over for Banks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. big bruv (12,993 comments) says:

    David Garrett

    Do you not find it hypocritical for Toad (and the Gweens) to call for the sacking of Banks given that they were the same people who ripped off the tax payer with their housing allowance fraud?

    Or is this just another case of the usual double standards we see from the left?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. jackp (668 comments) says:

    David Garrett, thanks for that imput about why dotcom said what he said. No matter what people say on here to you, you do have in sight of what happens in parliament because of your experience. I also like to say that you got a bum rap from the newsmedia especially when you were beginning to get Finlayson to come out of his hole with your questions regarding the Marine and Area Coastal bill (noticed how they change the name to tone it down). I was rooting for you because of your “hammering” on Finlayson, then all this bullshit in the media about you stopped it. Anyway, if Dotcome is getting back then Banks is almost certainly going. Good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.