Banks’ secret donation from the ‘wide boys’

101 comments on “Banks’ secret donation from the ‘wide boys’ ”

• Comments are now closed

1. LynW 1

   27 April 2012 at 7:32 am

   If there is any justice in the world let this hypocrisy be his downfall.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1

     27 April 2012 at 10:21 am

     You campaigned for him because you didnt want Banks to win .. Duh

     Hate to think what your personal relationships are like ….. short , sharp and full of screams could be easily imagined
   • Vicky32 1.2

     27 April 2012 at 10:31 pm

     With any luck! Clive had a piece of him tonight, or would have it he had fronted…
      
2. tc 2

   27 April 2012 at 7:42 am

   The tendrils of influence just keep encircling and tightening their grip in a damming and sad episode that shows most folk all pollys are bent……left, right, whatever.

   Nz law going once, twice, sold to whomever has the biggest barrow of goodies. Get the feeling your just an annoying tenant the landlord wishes would just shutup and cop it sweet.

   I find it nothing unusual for banksie a dim, shrill hypocrite doing what he’s told to for another round in the trough. Does he still get his parliamentary pension and an MP salary?
3. tsmithfield 3

   27 April 2012 at 7:50 am

   “Maybe the $15,000 undeclared donation from SkyCity helped.”

   To be fair, that statement is not completely accurate. The amount of $15000 was declared as a donation. It just didn’t specify Sky City as the donor. It would be more accurate to say that Sky City wasn’t declared as the donor of $15,000.

   Banks claims he didn’t know it was from Sky City at the time he signed the declaration. That could be the biggest difficulty in bringing any charge against him, as it would be necessary to prove that he had information before him that would have enabled him to know personally.
   • Te Reo Putake 3.1

     27 April 2012 at 8:00 am

     Not so, TS. The declarations assume knowledge and you sign saying they are true and correct. Saying I didn’t bother checking is not a defence. Presumably $15K was one of the larger donations of the million he claims to have got, so it would be both sensible and required in law for him to check where it came from. Clearly Len Brown did that, as he got the same donation and declared it correctly. If it was no mystery to Brown, how did Banks miss it?
   • lprent 3.2

     27 April 2012 at 8:02 am

     Not really. If I understand the peice of crap Acts that Rodney Hide bequeathed us – Banks is required to have found out. The donation is of a size that he had to.
     • ghostwhowalksnz 3.2.1

       27 April 2012 at 10:27 am

       Depends if the cheque from sky city had sky city written all over it would be vital.

       Banks is claiming his ‘accountants’ handled all the money. So if they then said it was anonymous while full knowing it was Sky City , Banks is on a slippery slope saying he didnt know.

       The oily orca was crowing about the Slipper controversy in Australia but here we have a serious crime not glorified employment dispute.

       Will Banks step aside ??
       Ha haha ha
       • bbfloyd 3.2.1.1

         27 April 2012 at 4:19 pm

         no argument with his accountants handling the money supply… i assume that is standard practice for any campaign…. his accountants, no doubt knowing the law, would have been obliged to inform banks where the money was coming from….

         if i was running for office, the last thing i would want is for a conflict of interest accusation to derail my campaign…. so it would seem rather obvious that they would have done what they were paid for…. which is to keep the candidate informed of any substantial donations, and who they came from..

         ergo… banks is lying…..
4. Carol 4

   27 April 2012 at 7:56 am

   Good luck with getting that 5%, Banksie! Act, the party for hypocrites, the morally bankrupt and (so-called) free-marketeers who don’t want to operate with a level playing field.
   • Lanthanide 4.1

     27 April 2012 at 4:50 pm

     They only managed 3.65% in 2008, I think aiming for 5% in 2014 is dreaming. They’ll be lucky to get 2%.
5. Sanctuary 5

   27 April 2012 at 8:00 am

   Banks may claim he didn’t know personally where the donation came from; But Len Brown did, so the question of criminal culpability turns on whether or not Banks SHOULD have made it his business to know where it came from before he signed his return.

   Imagine a banker gets an envelope stuffed with a million dollars in small, non-sequential, bills from a seedly looking Columbian with a large moustache and happily banks said million dollars.

   Imagine them later claiming at their subsequent trial he/she didn’t know it was drug money because they didn’t bother to ask. It wouldn’t cut much ice, would it?
6. Ben 6

   27 April 2012 at 8:11 am

   If I read correctly, Banks is only required to declare who the donation is from if he knows what the source is. He’s claiming he didn’t. Now I don’t believe him, either (because to say that is to say that SkyCity didn’t expect anything in return for their money) but is there any evidence that can prove he knew, beyond reasonable doubt?
   • Te Reo Putake 6.1

     27 April 2012 at 8:27 am

     Yep, the fact that Brown knew. They both received the same donation, so if Brown knew, Banks must have as well. And ignorance is not a defence, anyway.
   • Matt 6.2

     27 April 2012 at 8:56 am

     If the standard is that he either knew or should have known, then there is no defense.
   • Jackal 6.3

     27 April 2012 at 10:59 am

     John Banks – Asshole of the Week

     It’s likely John Banks intentionally tried to hide the $15,000 donation from SkyCity, but where he’s really going to come unstuck is that if the donation was legitimately anonymous, the candidate must give the donation (less $1500) to the Electoral Commission within 20 working days. John Banks failed to do this and is therefore at least guilty of an illegal practice…
     • TheContrarian 6.3.1

       27 April 2012 at 2:14 pm

       John Banks is straight up awful

       http://thenzcontrarian.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/john-banks-boards-train-to-crazy-town.html
7. Dave G 7

   27 April 2012 at 8:37 am

   Aha Glad you put the piece about Len in.

   Looks like he might have finally found he does have a BACKBONE and a SHRED of a COMMERCIAL brain.

   If people don’t like the Casino funding a convention centre in exchange for a few pokies, then go ahead and build one yourselves. Go fund the thing, get the unions to run it, with staff etc, and DO IT.

   The unions have millions wrapped up in their accounts, add a few sausage sizzles, a commercial loan and whalla, a Convention centre! Jobs for the boys run by Auntie Kelly.

   No one is stopping an alternate bid, but please enlist Len, he has just shown a shred of commercialism and perhaps an understanding of the MAJORITY of the people he is SUPPOSED to represent.
   • Matt 7.1

     27 April 2012 at 8:59 am

     “No one is stopping an alternate bid,”

     Funniest thing I’ve heard all morning, because part of the problem with the convention center is that Key & Co. were ignoring/rejecting other bids out of hand. Nice try though. 
   • Hayden 7.2

     27 April 2012 at 9:13 am

     whalla

     Your argument is invalid.
     • Lanthanide 7.2.1

       30 April 2012 at 9:43 am

       Yip, sure sign of an idiot.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.3

     27 April 2012 at 12:46 pm

     Society isn’t built on commercialism but on community and Len Brown was voted in by the community.
8. toad 8

   27 April 2012 at 8:41 am

   Section 134 Local Electoral Act 2001:

   134 False return
   (1) Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000.
   (2) Every candidate commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 who transmits a return of electoral expenses that is false in any material particular unless the candidate proves—
   (a) that he or she had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts; and
   (b) that he or she took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate.

   Banks’ line that he didn’t know the donation was from SkyCity will probably protect him from prosecution under subsection (1) unless someone comes up with a paper trail that shows he did know.

   He is a lot more vulnerable to prosecution under subsection (2) though, because that places an onus on him to have taken all reasonable steps to ensure the information was accurate. His line that he just signed off what his accountant prepared doesn’t cut it in terms of subsection (2).

   However, a conviction under subsection (2) wouldn’t see him chucked out of Parliament, whereas one under subsection (1) would.
   • tsmithfield 8.1

     27 April 2012 at 9:00 am

     That was the way I was seeing it as well.

     I can here a collective “bugger” coming from the left over this one. 🙂
     • felix 8.1.1

       27 April 2012 at 9:20 am

       “That was the way I was seeing it as well.”

       That’s weird, ‘cos your comment an hour and a half ago says “it would be necessary to prove that he had information before him that would have enabled him to know personally”.

       I guess you were just thinking it and typing the opposite.
       • tsmithfield 8.1.1.1

         27 April 2012 at 9:31 am

         Look at the article I linked to. It refers to the lesser charge with a penalty of a $5000 fine. Its stated right up there near the top of the article. So, I certainly read and knew about it.

         So far as the 2 year imprisonment charge, which I was referring to, it is quite clear that Toad and I agree on that point. Unless there is convincing evidence that he knew personally about Sky City donating the $15k, then it seems unlikely he can be convicted of a criminal offence.

         I agree that a $5000 fine is certainly a possibility. However, that won’t get him booted out of parliament. Just cost him a bit of pocket money.

         So, I stand exactly by what I said in both posts.
         • felix 8.1.1.1.1

           27 April 2012 at 9:33 am

           “So, I certainly read and knew about it.”

           And yet, you typed the opposite.
           • tsmithfield 8.1.1.1.1.1

             27 April 2012 at 9:45 am

             Yeah, you’re right.

             Rather than writing

             ” That could be the biggest difficulty in bringing any charge against him,”

             which I expect even the most deficient mong would realise, in the context of what I was replying to, and what I had written as a whole, was referring to the any charge that would get him kicked out of parliament. But apparently not.

             I should have written

             “That could be the biggest difficulty in bringing the specific charge against him that could see him ejected from parliament if found guilty”.

             Hope you can understand that now.
             • felix …

               27 April 2012 at 9:50 am

               You know if you just told the truth now and then you wouldn’t have to waste all this time “explaining” yourself to deficient mongs like me.
               • tsmithfield …

                 27 April 2012 at 9:58 am

                 I glad you are not so deficient that you can’t identify yourself in the comment I made.
                 • felix …

                   27 April 2012 at 10:08 am

                   whoosh
     • Te Reo Putake 8.1.2

       27 April 2012 at 9:28 am

       Again, not so, TS. Getting Banks chucked out of Parliament would be a bonus. Stopping him voting while the coppers investigate is the real result. Without his vote, more pressure goes on the Government and it gets harder to to win majority support for any contentious legislation, such as the SkyCity Jackpot Act or whatever it’s called. This is a situation not a million miles away from the Slipper affair over the ditch, which has cut Gillard’s majority to bugger all.
        
       And imagine the fun if Banks is stood down from voting in Parliament when the Asset Sale legislation goes up! The Hair will be crapping himself for starters.
       • tsmithfield 8.1.2.1

         27 April 2012 at 9:37 am

         Given there are two possible charges he could be prosecuted under, only one of which can see him kicked out of parliament, then it is not at all clear any prosecution would ever arise that could see him ejected from parliament.

         So even if the police do start investigating, I don’t see why that should prevent Banks from performing his parliamentary functions.

         Anyway, why would he be stopped from voting if he hasn’t actually been convicted of anything?
         • felix 8.1.2.1.1

           27 April 2012 at 9:43 am

           Because he took 15000 dollars from the casino that the bill he’d be voting on concerns. And he didn’t tell anyone about it.

           Duh.

           But hey let’s ignore those accepted facts and the incredibly obvious conflict of interest they convey, and argue instead about the legal test that you just invented.
       • Hami Shearlie 8.1.2.2

         27 April 2012 at 10:19 am

         No, the Hair won’t care – he’ll just re-arrange his follicles to be like Cousin It from the Addams Family – a Follicular curtain to hide behind!!!
     • Armchair Critic 8.1.3

       27 April 2012 at 9:42 am

       From the perspective of someone who identifies as left-leaning, I would prefer to see Banks prosecuted on the lesser charge. It is more likely to result in a conviction, it will bring further light onto Banks’s lack of suitability to be an MP and leader of a party and yet will not allow him the easy out of leaving parliament. A by-election only provides the left with a platform, ,National will win the seat. Better to left Banks stay on, and dig the right in deeper, and try for a by-election in a marginal seat.
       • felix 8.1.3.1

         27 April 2012 at 9:47 am

         Agreed, he’s far more use to us in the house being a twat in full view.

         It’s a Key/Banks government after all.
         • Lanthanide 8.1.3.1.1

           27 April 2012 at 2:44 pm

           Except if he isn’t an MP in parliament because he’s resigned or whatever, until the by-election the government will only have 60 votes out of a house of 120…
   • lprent 8.2

     27 April 2012 at 9:52 am

     Local Electoral Act 2001

     Wasn’t this also covered in the Auckland super-shitty acts? Or was that just kicking up spending limits.

     That is the section I was thinking of in 2b that they had taken reasonable steps which puts the onus of proof onto Banks to prove that he’d done that before signing the statement.

     The “knowing” test in part 1 is something that can really only be tested in a court because it will include deliberately not looking to find out. That becomes a matter of legal opinion looking at the pattern of behaviour amongst all of the donations and a test of if the effort exerted was sufficient.

     I’d set a judge to examine if there is a case to be made in a judicial enquiry. But I’d prefer that it went through the high court to set the standard.
     • tsmithfield 8.2.1

       27 April 2012 at 10:01 am

       According to the herald article he had accountants preparing the return for him. That being the case, he may have a reasonable excuse in that he was relying on their professional expertise in signing the return.
       • Hayden 8.2.1.1

         27 April 2012 at 10:06 am

         Add it to the list of things John Banks will sign without apparently understanding them, finance company prospectūs included.

         Anyone got a spare painting?
       • ghostwhowalksnz 8.2.1.2

         27 April 2012 at 10:29 am

         No , it may be a strict liability, in that he had an obligation to know.

         What we really want to know is will he step aside as a Minister while ‘under investigation’ !!
       • Anne 8.2.1.3

         27 April 2012 at 10:54 am

         Well now, that opens up another hypothesis.

         What if the accountants were told to ‘do whatever needs to be done’ to ensure that John Banks has no direct knowledge of the identity of the donators, so that he can use ignorance as an excuse should he be challenged. How would that go down in a police or judicial inquiry? The accountants and fundraisers would have to be interviewed. What do they do? Tell lies or tell the truth? I suspect they would do the latter because to do otherwise would be to dig their own graves.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 8.3

     27 April 2012 at 10:34 am

     The onus seems to be on Banks to prove he took all reasonable steps.

     Were the cheques photocopied so that he could see the name on the cheque ? Its a common method of creating a paper trail of payment records
9. Hilary 9

   27 April 2012 at 9:17 am

   Len Brown should have abstained on that vote about Sky City. That is standard ethical governance behaviour when there is a conflict of interest. He had been given money by Sky City which is a pretty obvious conflict of interest. When people start justifying their behaviour rather than acting ethically, particularly in governance roles – and both Banks and Brown have important public governance roles – they are in trouble.
10. tsmithfield 10

    27 April 2012 at 9:30 am

    Deleted
11. Hayden 11

    27 April 2012 at 9:36 am

    Why is it even possible to declare a donation from an unknown source? Isn’t the purpose of the declaration to remove possible conflicts of interest, and if so, how is this achieved by writing “dunno” next to the donation amount?

    Un-attributed donations should be placed in a holding account and not used until their source has been identified, IMO.

    Edit: okay, so it might have been a donation of radio time, so you can’t really put it in an account, but still.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 11.1

      27 April 2012 at 10:36 am

      Donation of radio time ?

      It obviously came from the radio station concerned- strike 2

      Banks has played his last shifty game
      • Hayden 11.1.1

        27 April 2012 at 10:59 am

        Whoops, I completely misread a story.

        From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10801742

        Labour MP Trevor Mallard has lodged an official complaint about Act leader John Banks failing to disclose a $15,000 donation was from SkyCity during his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign.

        Mr Mallard lodged the complaint with the Auckland Council electoral officer this week. He also asked the electoral officer to scrutinise “anonymous” donations of radio advertising Mr Banks had included in his return.

        SkyCity gave $15,000 each to Len Brown, now mayor, and Mr Banks, his rival, during that campaign.

        I thought it meant that a third party, i.e., SkyCity, had paid directly for the advertising. And I missed the “also”.
12. Penny Bright 12

    27 April 2012 at 10:38 am

    At 2pm today (Friday 27 April 2012), myself and another formal Auckland Mayoral candidate, community ‘watchdog’ Lisa Prager (who stood in 2007) will be making a formal complaint to Auckland Central Police under s.138 (2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001, regarding John Bank’s failure to declare the $15,000 donation from Sky City.

    As former Mayoral candidates, both Lisa Prager and myself believe that as a candidate , when you sign off on your electoral returns / expenses/ donations – then you should be accountable.

    How is it that the signature of the current Minister for Regulatory Reform, John Banks appears to be so meaningless?

    Particularly when you combine this, with the failure to date of John Banks as a former fellow Director of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd, to be held accountable for signing Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 which contained untrue statements.

    (Check the evidence on http://www.pennybright4epsom.org.nz )

    Lisa and myself have both inspected John Bank’s 2010 Auckland Mayoral electoral returns for ourselves – the $15,000 Sky City donation was not declared. The $15,000 Sky City donation to Len Brown was declared.

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campainger/
    • Anne 12.1

      27 April 2012 at 11:02 am

      All power to you Penny and Lisa Prager!
      • Tiger Mountain 12.1.1

        28 April 2012 at 11:05 am

        Go Penny, ‘Banksie’ is filth personified.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 12.2

      27 April 2012 at 1:27 pm

      As Capitaine Renault said in Casablanca

      Round up the usual suspects
      • Tiger Mountain 12.2.1

        28 April 2012 at 11:09 am

        jeez after all these years ‘ghost’ finally got a laugh out of me…
    • bad12 12.3

      27 April 2012 at 3:15 pm

      Good move, Its about time John(the convicted)Banks was again held responsible for his arrogant,ignorant, and ,possibly illegal actions, (the inclusion of the possibly was for obvious reasons),

      There is a cell in Auckland’s Mt Eden prison with the name Banks emblazoned across its portal, that includes the title of Archie as well, but, that would take only a small edit and a substitution of the word John to make this particular abode fitting for Banks…
    • the pink postman 12.4

      27 April 2012 at 3:46 pm

      Stick it up em Penny!. Bye the way was not Banks and Brash involved in some other sleazy business regarding shares ,
    • Hami Shearlie 12.5

      27 April 2012 at 11:23 pm

      After years of digging, you may have finally hit paydirt Penny. Great to see! You seem to have stumbled upon a very advanced case of alzheimers in old Banksie – he can’t remember nuffin!
    • KJT 12.6

      28 April 2012 at 11:31 am

      Still waiting for Brash, Banks and some other high profile finance company directors to join Petrovic.

      If Petrovic and Hotchin are guilty so are they.
13. Kevin 13

    27 April 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Rodney Hide prosecuted Winston Peters through parliaments privileges committee over an issue identical to this case concerning John Banks anonymous donations. Therefore it would be fair to say that ACT are behaving hypocritically:
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Full-interview-with-Rodney-Hide-on-todays-Privileges-Committee-hearing/tabid/370/articleID/69969/Default.aspx.
    • tc 13.1

      27 April 2012 at 12:42 pm

      ‘Therefore it would be fair to say that ACT are behaving hypocritically:’ that would be 100% business as usual for Banks.

      He banged on about akl council excess then I’ve heard once mayor had them modify a carpark to stash his bently in because he didn’t want it in the assigned mayoral space. An experienced trougher this one.
    • Draco T Bastard 13.2

      27 April 2012 at 1:07 pm

      That surprises you?
      • tc 13.2.1

        27 April 2012 at 2:19 pm

        the arrogance and ineffective MSM does, the corruption and outcomes nope.
    • Hami Shearlie 13.3

      27 April 2012 at 11:25 pm

      The two Johns looked very white-faced on the news tonight! Trying to divert attention from their dingy dealings by attacking a duck is an old, old ruse, it doesn’t work anymore!
    • KJT 13.4

      28 April 2012 at 11:34 am

      Why does it surprise anyone that the “party of individual responsibility” does not take any responsibility.
14. Fortran 14

    27 April 2012 at 1:02 pm

    [sorry – you’re currently on a 2 week ban. — r0b]
15. KATY 15

    27 April 2012 at 5:45 pm

    Bruce Thomas (The Auckland Council electoral officer) has referred the complaint to the Police.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10801852

    Now let us see what will happen next. Popcorn anyone.
16. Carol 16

    27 April 2012 at 7:04 pm

    I’m glad Banks would never ask me to ride in his helicopter while he’s driving….. never know where he might end up, and if he was asleep at the wheel.
17. bad12 17

    27 April 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Oh dear, Campbell Live what a tragedy for John(the convicted)Banks,hopefully soemone remembers to go in on Monday and amend the current complaint to include the DotCom donation as well,

    Someone in Mt Eden might want to get old Archie’s cell given a quick sweep,looks like the prodigal son might be finally returning to His roots,

    This is what happens when you cross utter stupidity,a naked sense of entitlement and right wing rat cunning together,

    The ACT political party you might say,

    Well yeah,that,and,politicians who have no regard for the laws of the land which they believe only apply to those lesser beings occupying the poorer suburbs, who simply ignore such laws believing they will never be subjected to Police investigation,

    Lets all Hope that John(the convicted)Banks gets this time round what He has richly deserved and managed to sleaze His way out of for far too many years…
    • Carol 17.1

      27 April 2012 at 7:25 pm

      Either a holiday in Mt Eden, or Banksie’s memory is just not good enough to be an MP.
    • Jilly Bee 17.2

      27 April 2012 at 7:31 pm

      Wahoo – have just watched Campbell Live – OMG how is he going to wriggle out of that? Talk about selected amnesia.
      • bad12 17.2.1

        27 April 2012 at 7:41 pm

        John(the convicted)Banks can have all the amnesia,selective or otherwise, in the world, IF the person or persons who gave that corrupt little piece of slime the 50 grand say to the investigation that will now obviously have to be broadened to ALL Bank’s electoral donations at ANY time, say that Bank’s knew WHO the donation was from and even discussed how HE wanted Them to donate,

        Then Bank’s deserves to be sitting not in the House of Parliament, Banks deserves that cell in Mt Eden Gaol…
    • Carol 17.3

      27 April 2012 at 7:36 pm

      T’is here:
      http://www.3news.co.nz/Banks-knew-about-anonymous-Dotcom-donation—reports/tabid/817/articleID/252130/Default.aspx

      An investigation found that like the Sky City donation, the Dotcom donation appears to be listed as anonymous.

      The question is why?

      The Dotcom camp is adamant Banks knew the money was from them.

      John Banks declined to do an on-camera interview, but it does seem that he did not always decline invitations concerning Kim Dotcom.

      Watch the video for the full story.
      • rosy 17.3.1

        27 April 2012 at 8:04 pm

        Ouch! Good work Campbell Live.

        Two questions
        – did he ask for the 50,000 to be split so he had 4 x 25,000 anonymous donations making it more likely that he would be believed when ha said he didn’t know where they came from, or is there a 25,000 cut-off somewhere?

        – If the use of helicopters is so routine in these circles that Banks’ can’t remember if he was flown to Coatsville by dot.com, why do they need the holiday highway /sarc
        • Jackal 17.3.1.1

          27 April 2012 at 8:28 pm

          And to think this guy is meant to be running the country… FFS!
          • Anne 17.3.1.1.1

            27 April 2012 at 8:37 pm

            So, any predictions when the Epsom byelection will be?
            • rosy 17.3.1.1.1.1

              27 April 2012 at 8:48 pm

              ASAP if the response to the Pansy Wong misdeed is anything to go by. Close down the discussion and get Epsom as a Nat seat – they won’t want to talk to the Conservatives as they are anti-asset sales. National has already put it’s nasty face on, so doesn’t need Act to hide behind.
              • just saying …

                28 April 2012 at 9:18 am

                Hi Rosy,
                Didn’t that scandal drag on for months?
                You could be right, but the government will find it hard to justify honouring its coalition deal with ACT without ACT.
                I reckon they’ll find a way to drag this out if they can.
                • Carol …

                  28 April 2012 at 9:20 am

                  Hmmmm…. indeed…. and Charter schools?
                  • just saying …

                    28 April 2012 at 9:30 am

                    And not just that. There’s the cap on govt spending legislation too, and something else of significance but can’t quite recall what.
                • rosy …

                  28 April 2012 at 6:55 pm

                  yeah, you’re right, but once it lookrd like going offical she resigned immdiately. This one is already there… and it’s looking like the defence is not.
            • Matthew Hooton 17.3.1.1.1.2

              28 April 2012 at 8:40 am

              This, just launched now at opening price of 25% probability of byelection, should provide good data on that question by lunchtime: https://www.ipredict.co.nz/app.php?do=contract_detail&contract=B.E.EPSOM
        • Carol 17.3.1.2

          27 April 2012 at 8:38 pm

          I wonder how much was Campbell Live’s clever investigation? Campbell said they had heard about the Dotcom donation….. how?

          After all the time Dotcom spent getting friendly with local pollies, donating to them etc, did he think they landed him in it with the US authorities? Or at least, allowed him to be handed over too easily?

          And does Dotcom have anything else in his back pocket that would be helpful in future negotiations?
          • Anne 17.3.1.2.1

            27 April 2012 at 9:42 pm

            Can’t say I watched much of it, but Campbell Live did do several pieces on the Dotcom/US affair and they seemed to be sympathetic towards him. That suggests there was a line of communication open between them so I guess Dotcom told C/L about the donation himself. Or perhaps he detailed someone to tell them for him.
      • felix 17.3.2

        27 April 2012 at 8:39 pm

        Absolutely disgraceful. John Campbell doesn’t know which street the Auckland Town Hall is on.
        • Tigger 17.3.2.1

          27 April 2012 at 9:41 pm

          It was a masterful piece by Campbell, provided evidence and asked questions.

          So why did Dotcom split the donation if not on the advice of Banks?

          Banks sounded very shaky on the phone. Not recalling if he flew into Dotcom’s property two years ago?

          Banks is gone. Will ACT put up a candidate? Can National run that ‘vote for the other guy’ line in such a pressure cooker?
          • Anne 17.3.2.1.1

            27 April 2012 at 9:49 pm

            So why did Dotcom split the donation if not on the advice of Banks?

            According to Campbell, Banks asked Dotcom if he would donate it in two $25,000 lots. Unfortunately Banks can’t confirm it because it was “nearly two years ago now, and he’s forgotten who gave him donations for his campaign”. 😉
          • bad12 17.3.2.1.2

            27 April 2012 at 11:58 pm

            Am not wont to offer anything but criticism to Campbell Live but that has to be a 10 outta 10 what a perfect piece of ‘smoking gun’ television reporting,

            Campbell probably got the story handed to him on a platter by the much maligned Kim DotCom but still probably one of the best ‘gotcha’s’ in recent TV history only lacking DotCom Himself standing in front of the camera intoning the details in His comical sounding Germanesque English,

            Bank’s first tryed the its a Labour beat up bluster for defence but once He realized that Dotcom had given Him up the ”I can’t remember” whining started,

            The way it works in the nasty little rats-nest of the right is that Banks,now a Cabinet Minister wouldnt even have been answering Dotcom’s calls after the plods turned Him over and seized all His toys on behalf of the Yanks,

            Dotcom has probably got to thinking that He made better more loyal friends while locked up on remand and they didn’t cost Him 50 grand,

            if there’s any truth to the rumour that Doctor Dullard, Don Brash bought the ACT Party off the previous owners lock stock and barrel at a bargain basement rate we might just see that Dork back in the Parliament,(another of Slippery’s friends with an axe to grind so to speak),

            Who sez politics is boring,the fun has only just begun…
            • felix 17.3.2.1.2.1

              28 April 2012 at 7:33 am

              “Dotcom has probably got to thinking that He made better more loyal friends while locked up on remand and they didn’t cost Him 50 grand”

              Yep. These right-wingers are so bent they can’t even do corruption honestly.
            • Carol 17.3.2.1.2.2

              28 April 2012 at 7:50 am

              if there’s any truth to the rumour that Doctor Dullard, Don Brash bought the ACT Party off the previous owners lock stock and barrel at a bargain basement rate we might just see that Dork back in the Parliament,(another of Slippery’s friends with an axe to grind so to speak),

              Nah. Banks is an electorate MP. If he goes, there’ll be a by-election and National will push their own candidate – no chance of a party vote Act, coat-tail effect.
18. bad12 18

    27 April 2012 at 7:54 pm

    Perhaps NOW would be a reasonable time for those who made the other 2 ANONYMOUS 25 grand donations to the Banks campaign fund to come forward and say whether or not Banks knew that they had donated the sums or not,

    The truth WILL COME OUT and an elongated silence leading to such revelations will have those who did carrying some culpability in what is beginning to look like a trail of offending against the electoral act by the leader of ACT should they remain silent until in effect found out…
19. Anne 19

    27 April 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Carol beat me to it. Don’t forget the video!
20. SG1023 20

    28 April 2012 at 12:00 am

    http://blog.labour.org.nz/tag/michelle-boag/ So back to the fundraising team for Banks and we will find central to it – MIchelle Boag
    good that Mallard can put the hits in. No one else in Labour seems to be doing anything presently.
21. Frank Macskasy 21

    28 April 2012 at 2:10 am

    Hmmm, it looks like my prediction of an early election might be coming to fruition sooner than I thought…
22. Kotahi Tane Huna 22

    28 April 2012 at 8:28 am

    From the Herald story:

    Act Party president Chris Simmons said he had full confidence in Mr Banks. “There’s a bit of a beat-up going on. It was all to do with the mayoral campaign. It doesn’t have anything to do with Act.”

    Stupid? Check! Delusional? Check!
23. toad 23

    28 April 2012 at 8:35 am

    Byelection in Epsom? The end of the ACT Party? Loss of majority for asset sales?

    This has huge implications. Banks can probably wriggle out of the SkyCity one by saying that he just signed off on what his accountant prepared, but with the Kim Dotcom one there are witnesses who will testify that he orchestrated the donation to make it appear anonymous.

    That is corrupt and unlawful, and if he is convicted enough to get him chucked out of Parliament.
    • Carol 23.1

      28 April 2012 at 8:45 am

      And Winston must have a bit of a satisfied smile staring at the cold dish served up on the platter.
      • Hami Shearlie 23.1.1

        28 April 2012 at 10:22 am

        Winnie’s smile will be Cheshire-Cat-esque and who could blame him? There’s a huge smorgasbord to dine out on here with Banksie’s sudden alzheimers attack. He says he can’t remember nuffin, but unfortunately others can and they have witnesses!!!
24. Sukie damson 24

    28 April 2012 at 9:34 am

    Followed by 2 years in the big house for just desserts.
25. Carol 25

    28 April 2012 at 10:44 am

    Andrew Geddis provides a legal perspective on the Banks-Dotcom story:

    http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/so-let-the-sun-shine-in-face-it-with-a-grin

    The curious point is the alleged request to split the $50,000 into 2 payments:

    But against those reasons for believing Mr Dotcom is his claim that: “John said, ‘Wait a minute. It would be good if you could split it up into two payments of 25 [thousand dollars], then I don’t declare publicly who made it’.” This seems a bit odd, on its face. Splitting a donation of $50,000 into two donations of $25,000 has no effect whatsoever on the requirement to disclose it under the Local Electoral Act 2001.

    So, either Dotcom’s “memory” is wrong, or Banks had another reason for asking for the donation in two $25,000 cheques….

    … and then it sits along side 3 other anonymous payments for the same amount…. curiouser and curiouser….
    • deuto 25.1

      28 April 2012 at 10:57 am

      … and then it sits along side 3 other anonymous payments for the same amount…. curiouser and curiouser….

      Exactly – in which case Banks possibly already knew he had one, two or all of these 3 other “anonymous” donations of $25,000. If so, did he also know who made the other “anonymous” donation(s)?
26. Carol 26

    28 April 2012 at 10:57 am

    Hmmmm, Tracy Watkins claims that if Banks goes, and a Nat MP wins Epsom, National’s majority would increase:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6823034/Banks-questioned-over-Dotcom-donation

    If Banks goes, ACT would disappear from Parliament as he is its sole surviving MP. That would change the make-up of Parliament and the numbers would work in National’s favour because it would be confident of its candidate Paul Goldsmith winning there, assuming there is no other strong centre-right candidate. That would then bring another National MP into Parliament off the list, shoring up National’s majority.

    But it would be reliant on the Maori Party during any by-election campaign, which would be up to four weeks, and that might jeopardise its ability to pass legislation on asset sales, or other measures the Maori Party opposes.

    And Watkins also says Mallard is going to lodge a complaint over Dotcom’s alleged donation.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS