Dodgy old Banksie

Written By: - Date published: 11:40 am, April 28th, 2012 - 208 comments
Categories: Politics - Tags: ,

I think sometimes people forget that John Banks made his political bones under Muldoon, but lessons of the old tusker are on full display at the moment as he meets new allegations of dodgy campaign funding with the kind of aggressive black is white response that would make piggy proud.

It’s been revealed that Banks took fifty thousand dollars for his campaign from Kim Dotcom. Given the subsequent furore around Dotcom, the would be slightly embarrassing in its own right but it’s been considerably exacerbated by the fact it came in three two separate payments – as requested by Banks so he could keep the donation anonymous.

This may be illegal as I believe the the test for whether the donation is anonymous is the candidate’s knowledge of the donor rather than the wish of the donor to go unnamed (but I’m no big city lawyer – anyone who is please feel free to comment). However it certainly raises a whole lot of questions about what other donors Banksie is hiding and what favours might be attached to those donations.

And remember, Banksie is John Key’s majority.

In some ways this is part of a trend I’m seeing on the right toward small-time cronyism and backroom handshake deals. They appear to be moving away from the slavish worship of neo-liberalism and multi-national capitalism and towards the kind of deals-for-mates, personal-connection politics we’ve seen them embrace before – in Muldoon’s day.

208 comments on “Dodgy old Banksie”

  1. Ianupnorth 1

    After reading a John Pilger article about the rise of the CIA in interfering with overseas law enforcement (http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/you-are-all-suspects-now-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it), I decided to contact him about the Dotcom situation.

    I also watched the Campbell Live thing from a few weeks ago (http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/Campbell-Live-Thursday-March-1-2012/tabid/119/articleID/5578/Default.aspx)

    After that I was sort of warming to Dotcom, thinking of him as an eccentric maverick, but if he is hanging with Banksy he can get lost!

    • Logie97 1.1

      That “cup of tea” must have tasted so bitter for Key. He knew what the rest of Auckland knew right from the start and tried so desperately to delay the meeting. And now this. Oh joy as they squirm …

    • xtasy 1.2

      Dotcom has his own legal challenges to answer, for sure, and that will be dealt with. The offer of a nice donation to Banksie is a separate matter. Dotcom is perhaps in some regards also a questionable character, although very humorous and likeable (not intending any harm), but bear in mind, he is a new migrant with wealth, not familiar with every aspect of NZ law and society. So he may have thought, that there is not much wrong with helping Banksy (who may have helped him before) to fight a mayoral competition.

      This is “normal” in many countries, but of course controlled in NZ and others. So perhaps Dotcom was thinking of his nice and easy days in Thailand or thereabouts, when making the donation.

      Informed people know, that NZ is NOT the uncorrupted country that governments here tell their people. There are favours, deals and backhanders exchanged for sure, but it is kept discretely. That is the very difference.

      And for those unconvinced, just walk the streets of Central Auckland, on nights and weekends, to see how much prostitution and else goes on here freely. Even some Kiwis are happily marrying prostitutes from certain countries, to get PR and freely engage in their “economic activities” here. I see it just down the road from where I live. Get real.

      • Anita 1.2.1

        I don’t see the connection between corruption (which is illegal) and street prostitution (which is entirely legal).

        Also, there is nothing wrong with Dotcom giving money to Banks’ mayoral campaign (well except for showing a poor judgment of character), it’s entirely legal. The illegality is if Banks declared the donations to be anonymous if they weren’t.

        • xtasy 1.2.1.1

          Yes, of course prostitution is legal in NZ now. Apart from personally being unable to see the true “social” or “economic” benefits of prostitution, I was rather generally challenging, how “uncorrupt” some NZers (like others) really are, or are not.

          I have learned that some NZers have no problem with somehow abusing the immigration laws by entering into pretended marriages or de facto relationships, simply to “help” migrants involved in some activities like prostitution, who will probably not offer much “benefit” or “contribution” to NZ society and the economy here. Naturally most will only make such compromises for some “reward”.

          Apart from that little distraction, of course Dotcom can legally make donations to Banks or others, and I understand that Banks appears to have been somewhat dishonest about the donations he got, suggesting they be split, so they can “pass” as being “anonymous”.

          At present the challenge is to clearly prove that he did not – without reasonable doubt – know for sure, from whom each individual donation was. A look at his declaration and further questioning of Dotcom and other witnesses are essential.

          The whole donation system does clearly favour candidates and parties that somehow flirt with and are prepared to somehow “cater” for the interests of donators, be this individuals, enterprises or trusts. Parties not having very financial supporters will struggle to get substantion donations, while parties like ACT and National may do fairly well.

    • Fortran 1.3

      Dotcom may have done his own cause quite some damage, now that he known to be associated with Banks.
      Silly fat German.

      • Anita 1.3.1

        Fortran writes,

        Dotcom may have done his own cause quite some damage, now that he known to be associated with Banks.

        I’m pretty sure that was already well known.

        Silly fat German.

        Good to know that you have the arguing style of a 6 year old and are racist and bodyshape obsessed.

        • felix 1.3.1.1

          Racist, bodyshape obsessed, and lacking the courtesy to piss off when he’s been banned.

  2. Dv 2

    If Banks goes there will be a new election in Epsom, and they will probably return a Nat.

    • Eddie 2.1

      would ACT stand anyone? Would Labour and the Greens? Would the Nats stand someone new or Goldsmith?

      A range of permutations present themselves. – and at least for a few weeks the government wouldn’t have a majority on rightwing stuff. legislation fails on a draw.

      • Colonial Viper 2.1.1

        Let’s pull teeth on Banksie over the next 6 months. It’ll be fun watching Key squirm with each tug.

    • Ianupnorth 2.2

      It actually needs an ‘independent’ candidate that could draw support from everywhere and who would stand against National policies such as asset sales.

      • Colonial Viper 2.2.1

        THE CONSERVATIVES

        That’ll fuck National’s ‘asset sales to their overseas investment banking mates’ programme.

      • Unfortrunately, Ianupnorth, it’s a fairly safe Tory seat… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsom_%28New_Zealand_electorate%29

        The best we could hope for is a National win over ACT (for reasons I outline below).

        But hey, I’d love to be wrong and would be the first to do a little ‘happy dance’ if a by-election resulted in a Conservatives or Labour win! 😀

        • Colonial Viper 2.2.2.1

          Interestingly a “Tory” seat should = “Conservative”

          • ghostwhowalksnz 2.2.2.1.1

            Cant see it happening!
            Campaigning on opposition to asset sales during a general election is one thing- it appeals to older but conservative voters in provincial NZ.
            Wont wash in Epsom, with a high proportion of the managerial elite and business owners.

            For a by election there is no party vote so no need to run a national candidate if you want ACT to win.

            Its easier for national to let this one go, let ACT stand Isaacs/Judd who is unknown in Auckland.

    • Carol 3.1

      Well, Watkins thinks a Nat win in an Epsom byelection would bolster National’s majority.
      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.

      But that wouldn’t increase NAct’s majority, and would possibly endanger the agreements National have with Act e.g. Charter Schools, cap on government spending etc.

  3. Carol 4

    Andrew Geddis has provided a legal opinion:

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

    The interesting thing is there was no need to split the donation into two $25,000 lots in order to be able to make the donation anonymous. So that raises questions about the other three $25,000 anonymous donations to Banks’ campaign.

    And, Irish, I thought the donation was split in two not into three?

  4. If there’s a by-election, the chances are that the Right will win it. Epsom is a blue-ribbon electorate. So in terms of numbers, it doesn’t matter if a National or ACT candidate wins it.

    What will matter is that if National wins and the ACT candidate loses, then the Nats will no longer have an excuse to implement right wing policies such as Charter Schools. That was an ACT policy, not National.

    So National would be within it’s rights to dump it, should they regain Epsom.

    If they don’t, it would indicate to the public that the Nats are moving to the Right, regardless of their coalition deal with ACT.

    That would give pause for thought for many voters…

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsom_%28New_Zealand_electorate%29

    • Carol 5.1

      Unless…. unless….
      What would really throw the cat amongst the pigeons would be for the Greens and Labour not to stand a candidate and for Winston to go up against Goldsmith as the only alternative.

      That would be a straightforward contest between old and neo-conservatism!

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

        Oh yeah…now that might really do it…good thinking!

        • Carol 5.1.1.1

          Or even another NZF MP, with strong backing from Winston.

          • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.1

            Oh wow thats better again haha. I need to get my head around this strategy stuff. You’ve obviously had experience!

          • ghostwhowalksnz 5.1.1.1.2

            Name one ?

            No it has to be Winston and if Labour doesnt stand ( highly probable because they havent any money or have any advantage from loosing to National or ACT)

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.2.1

              Field a new NZ1 candidate. Not a sitting MP.

            • Frank Macskasy 5.1.1.1.2.2

              Whichever way we look at it – this will prove entertaining.

              The main issue, though, would be that if ACT loses Epsom – will National carry on with Charter Schools and other ACT initiatives? This will be telling, and will reveal how far to the Right the Nats are really going.

              Without ACT to blame for extreme right wing policies, the Nats will have to finally take responsibility for their policies.

              Taking responsibility… not something the right wing do willingly for themselves. They usually reserve demanding Personal Responsibility for beneficiaries, Maori, working class, etc…

              As for Peters contesting Epsom… if polling indicated he had a chance, I’d donate to his campaign.

              • I understand, and am charmed myself, by the beguiling persona of Winston Peters as the politician but what I can’t understand is why people, the far left in particular, support him with such vigor. Take a step back from the sharp thinking and straight talking statesman, the harsh truth is he is a crook, a liar and has committed the same crime that Banks has – he took donations from Owen Glenn and lied about it – filing it as an “anon” donation. So why Peters? Because you like him. I like him too but lets be honest, just because you like his politics doesn’t make him any less guilty than Banks.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Got copy of the conviction?

                • RedLogix

                  Electoral law has changed since then TC.

                  You keep forgetting that National at the same time was channelling 98% of it’s donations, amounting to many millions of dollars, through two trust funds. When challenged on that National either refused to reply or simply said that the practise was within the law at the time.

                  Winston Peter’s mistake was when he held up the infamous “NO” sign… it should have read “NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS”. Which is exactly what National was doing as well.

                  Moreover Peters believed that Glenn’s donation was earmarked for the purpose of his own personal legal defense fund, rather than for the purposes of NZ1. In hindsight it seems Glenn didn’t have the same understanding at all.

                  All round a tad hypocritical of Peters and a cock-up.. but as DtB points out, not actually an offense at the time… and of course no conviction.

                  • Banks and Peters are as guilty as each other.

                    “Peters believed that Glenn’s donation was earmarked for the purpose of his own personal legal defense fund”
                    Seems funny that he would lie about it instead of just coming out and saying so.

                    “Got copy of the conviction?”
                    “Electoral law has changed since then”
                    “and of course no conviction.”
                    So that makes it OK?
                    So if Banks doesn’t get a conviction it’ll be OK too?

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      No, it doesn’t and the law isn’t always right. That said, I still think Peter’s case was less than what NACT made it out to be and the fact that it was more trial by media than proper process didn’t help.

                    • Peters paid for his transgressions by being thrown out of Parliament in 2008.

                      As far as I’m concerned, the electorate made their judgement, and that settles it.

                      Time to “move on” as you right wingers are so foond of telling us when things go pear-shaped for your own…

                  • Anita

                    RedLogix writes:

                    Electoral law has changed since then TC.

                    Banks’ return was made under different legislation (Local Electoral Act</a) from Peters' (Electoral Act). The returns and donations rules for local government and general elections have never been the same (although many people argue they should be more similar).

                    • “I still think Peter’s case was less than what NACT made it out to be and the fact that it was more trial by media than proper process didn’t help.”

                      Peters received a large donation, never declared it, lied about to the hilt, gathered a media scrum and lied point blank to everyone, came out and admitted lying about it and tried to fob the money off to charities, some of whom didn’t want to take it.

                      Come on, be honest here. The whole thing stank. Peters is just as guilty as Banks. I think they are both dirty and to say one is cleaner than the other is just playing politics and, quite frankly, dishonest

                    • @Frank – I am not a right winger.

                    • millsy

                      Contrarion, your blog suggests otherwise…

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      …came out and admitted lying about it and tried to fob the money off to charities, some of whom didn’t want to take it.

                      You seem to be getting confused, the money NZ1st tried to give to charities was the money that the AG determined had been wrongfully spent during the election campaign.

                    • @ Mills
                      Please to point to the part in my blog in which I declare my political leanings. (Hint – not being on the far left doesn’t make one a right winger)

                      @Draco – you are right, I had forgotten about that. Yeah, now I remember, Peters refused to give the money back to the taxpayer. So that’s two incidents, one of which is the same incident in which Banks is embroiled. So, to recap. When Banks does it = bad. Peters = not so bad.

                    • millsy

                      ..Well you have slagged off The Standard, and supported the offshore sale of the Crafar Farms for starters.

                      [lprent: Lots of people do that – from all kinds of angles. Provided they behave themselves here, we tend to ignore it. If I have time, I will often have a go at the more hypocrital on their sites. But alas, I have a project to finish the coding for and too little time to do the work here…]

                    • @Millsy – My “slagging off” The Standard is quite clearly warranted and evidenced. There is nothing “Right wing” about pointing out how badly the moderators dealt with a mere differencing of opinion.

                      My article on the Crafar deal outlines the truth of the matter and I quite clearly state I would prefer to have NZ owership. There is nothing in it to suggets I support foreign ownership over NZ ownership.

                      I am not right-wing, my blog isn’t right-wing. What you are mistaking as “right-wing” is in fact someone not agreeing with what you believe. That doesn’t make me right-wing, the makes me not far-left wing.

                    • RedLogix

                      @Anita. Well yes and that makes technically comparing Peters and Banks position a little more complex.

                      The point is that Winston was NOT in breach of the applicable law at the time. Yes his conduct was roundly criticised and resulted in bad result for NZ1 in 2008. But the point that got lost in all of this was that what he was doing in hiding the sources of his donor’s was exactly the same behaviour that National had been doing for years on a much larger scale. Condemn Winston for what happened and you are automatically tarring National with an identical, but much larger, brush.

                      Although in Peters case was made all the more complex because the distinction between donation to NZ1 and to Peter’s himself got blurred. That was probably the real source of his problems. And he paid a price for this mistake.

                      By contrast John Banks appears to be in a clear breach the obvious intent and purpose of the applicable law. He has clearly directed a donor to manipulate the form of his donation in such a way as to pretend it was anonymous… when absolutely it was not. Banks has made a significantly more direct and serious error and there will be a consequence.

                    • @RedLogix:

                      “you are automatically tarring National with an identical, but much larger, brush.”
                      I have no problem in criticising National but that isn’t relevant here, this is about Banks and Peters.

                      Peters blatantly, openly and continuously lied about the whole affair. To your face and mine. This is factual and public knowledge. To support Winston and condemn Banks for the same action is hypocritical in the extreme.

                    • RedLogix

                      I have yet to see you roundly condemn National for obscuring and thus effectively lying to the public about the real source of their donations. And National did that continuously for years. It’s hypocritical to discount that as irrelevant and then condemn Peters.

                      Given that Peters was never found to have breached any actual law, nor convicted of anything… it’s a false equivalence to compare that situation with what appears to be unravelling here with Banks. Who appears on the face of it to have clearly breached the applicable law.

                      Or are you just saying that we should all shut up and let Banks get away with this?

                    • @RedLogix – I have been quite open about my dislike of Banks. I look forward to seeing the back of him.

                      There is a reason that you “have yet to see you [me] roundly condemn National for obscuring and thus effectively lying to the public about the real source of their donations.”

                      It is because no one has posted an article about it and it hasn’t come up. You bringing it up here is irrelevant and a red herring. You blog on it somewhere and I’ll join you in the comments section.

                      “Given that Peters was never found to have breached any actual law, nor convicted of anything… it’s a false equivalence to compare that situation with what appears to be unravelling here with Banks.”
                      Firstly not being convicted doesn’t mean he didn’t lie and attempt to hide the truth. Secondly it isn’t a false equivalence because at the moment “Banks was [as of yet] never found to have breached any actual law, nor convicted of anything…”
                      So they are very equivalent

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      So that’s two incidents, one of which is the same incident in which Banks is embroiled.

                      There are two incidents, they aren’t quite the same. One seems to be confusion over what the donation was for*, one is trying to hide the donation against applicable law and morality. The latter is far worse.

                    • RedLogix

                      Well the question of National’s trusts was at the time widely discussed here at The Standard. At the time we were all well aware of what was happening.

                      And if you recall Peters was investigated by three State agencies and brought before the Privileges Committee and no charge was ever laid.

                      If you think that somehow exonerates what Banks has now done.. then just say so.

                    • felix

                      “It is because no one has posted an article about it and it hasn’t come up. You bringing it up here is irrelevant and a red herring.”

                      Oh of course. And the reason this applies to RedLogix bringing up National’s donations but doesn’t apply to you bringing up Peters’ donations is…

                    • “Oh of course. And the reason this applies to RedLogix bringing up National’s donations but doesn’t apply to you bringing up Peters’ donations is…”

                      Another poster brought up Peters as someone to run for Banks seat and I pointed out that Peters has been guilty of the same, if not extremely similar, incident. That’s how it started and that is how it is (was) relevant. What is not relevant is the suggestion I can’t criticise Peters for this because I have not expressly criticised National.

                      “One seems to be confusion over what the donation was for*,” Oh really? So not that lying about receiving it in the first place was what was wrong here? Lying to everyone when he knew from the start he received it (it is in the public sphere – this is no assertion). So what about that doesn’t break morality again…?

                    • RedLogix

                      Well the question put to Peters at the time was framed in terms of “did Owen Glenn ever donate money to NZ1?”

                      Given that Peters claimed to have had asked Glenn to donate to his legal defense fund, it was not unreasonable to say “NO” in answer to that question. Glenn subsequently disputed that version of events and we got all the noisy fallout.

                      And as I said above, if Peters had answered the question above with “None of your business” … he would have been saying exactly what National and ACT had been saying about their sources of donations via their Trusts for years. And no-one would really have had anything to say …especially in the context of the funding law at the time.

                      Again three State agencies investigated NZ1, plus the Privileges Committee, all investigated the matter and no charges were ever laid. Of course there was never any real intent to find anything criminal against Peters, it was a politically motivated smear job timed nicely for the upcoming election.

                      By contrast Banks was operating under a different law that is quite explicit about how donations are to be treated and under what circumstances they can be declared ‘anonymous’. How this falls out remains to be seen.

                    • felix

                      “Another poster brought up Peters as someone to run for Banks seat and I pointed out that Peters has been guilty of the same, if not extremely similar, incident. That’s how it started and that is how it is (was) relevant. “

                      Other posters have also brought up the fact that National will stand a candidate too, and as RedLogix points out they’re also guilty of the same, if not extremely similar behaviour as Peters and Banks.

                      So oh wow look at that! Even according to the rule you made up about what can be discussed in relation to what else, National’s finances are in. Neat eh?

                      Not that it matters, ‘cos like I said it’s just a rule you made up.

                • “…but what I can’t understand is why people, the far left in particular, support him with such vigor.”

                  I hope you’re not including me in that statement.

                  I was his most trenchant critic from 11 December 1996, when he betrayed voters by coalescing with National after constantly attacking them as “unfit to govern”.

                  As I posted on my blog; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/winston-dont-even-think-about-it/

        • Balanced View 5.1.1.2

          No chance. Epsom were quite happy to reluctantly vote Banks in order to improve National’s chance to govern. They sure as he’ll aren’t going to jeopardize the National government by voting for Winston.

          • Frank Macskasy 5.1.1.2.1

            I suspect you’re right, BV.

          • McFlock 5.1.1.2.2

            Yeah.
               
            They’ll probably vote for yet another troughing nact proxy, and be all surprised when it turns sour  [again]. Any bonus for voting according to principle that accrues because ACT are now as popular as united future is lost simply because national really need the extra seat.

  5. Pascal's bookie 6

    Gosh. Banks has taken to the twittering machine this morning.

    Screen grabs might be in order.

    eg

    https://twitter.com/#!/JohnBanksPR/status/196026714650984448

    Up is down. Left is right. White is black. Dotcom will be free and I’ll go to jail.

    Melt, it is downing.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1

      As it was, Banks was on very thin mental ice during the election campaign.

      • bad12 6.1.1

        Indeed, Banks continual chanting of john key john key john key throughout the 2011 election campaign had him looking like (a)a methamphetamine user who didn’t know he was being fed the stuff, or (b), a love struck 16 year old continually fixated upon the particular love interest of the moment in an unhealthy manner,

        Quite nauseating really…

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

          What happened to Banksie’s Harley anyways? There was a rumour that some unsavoury types had gotten hold of it.

  6. Tiger Mountain 7

    bye bye Banksie, hasta la vista you Bentley owning filthy bastard…

    • Colonial Viper 7.1

      According to Campbell he flies his own helicopter as well.

      • Tiger Mountain 7.1.1

        Heh CV, TS and the rest might claim “envy” but really the bloated toys of the wealthy are so ridiculous who would seriously want them.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.1.1

          Indeed

          Who would want to look out of touch, like a prick and a home invasion target, all in one go.

          “If the wings move faster than the fuselage, it must be a helicopter and therefore unsafe”

      • He likes flying helicopters and has a Bentley? That monster!

        Seriously though, I think Banks is completely hopeless but him owning a Bentley and liking helicopters is nothing to dislike. So what? Focus on his malformed ideas, not his possessions or hobbies.

        • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.1

          Sorry mate elite, privileged and out of touch is elite, privileged and out of touch.

          And apparently he doesn’t just “like” helicopters he owns at least one of them. How the other half live I guess.

        • felix 7.1.2.2

          Monster? Who suggested he was a monster?

          The charge is “self-indulgent tasteless egomaniac twat”.

          You and Gosman really need to sort this shit out.

          • TheContrarian 7.1.2.2.1

            I judge people on their actions and behaviour. I dislike Banks because of those two things.
            Not because of what he owns.

            Get some perspective.

            • Colonial Viper 7.1.2.2.1.1

              I suspect you haven’t realised that to people like Banks, what he OWNS and how much HE MAKES is a core part of WHO HE IS.

            • felix 7.1.2.2.1.2

              You judge people on their actions and behaviour?

              Right, that explains the whole “monster” bit you made up and then judged other commenters on as if it were real.

            • Draco T Bastard 7.1.2.2.1.3

              When what people own is damaging to everyone else, such as a helicopter, then I’ll quite happily dislike them for such disregard and arrogance.

              • Colonial Viper

                I wonder if that chopper has helped him get laid.

                • Kevin Welsh

                  Nooooooo, CV!

                  Lets not get into the sexual habits of those on the right. 🙂

                • M

                  ‘I wonder if that chopper has helped him get laid.’

                  LOL, CV probably the only thing that could ensure success. Funny how the right get all moral about a pirate magnate when it was the American media companies who taught people how to pirate in the first place and not a surprise that one group of freeloaders, record and film execs and all their hangers-on, would turn on one of their own once the going got tough financially.

                  Can’t speak for all women but any man that has to have that public a wank with his possessions will always be a turn off – what a prat.

              • “When what people own is damaging to everyone else, such as a helicopter”

                Owning a helicopter is damaging to everyone else? Wow. How do you figure that?

                @ Felix – Obvious hyperbole is obvious

                • Draco T Bastard

                  Wow. How do you figure that?

                  Just one teeny problem…

                  • Wow, that is really pathetic dude.

                    Come on, Banks is a ass because of his dumb ideas. Not because he owns a helicopter. You are clutching at ever more ridiculous straws. Not only that – is there any evidence Banks even owns a helicopter? I can’t find any.

                    • Anita

                      TheContrarian writes,

                      is there any evidence Banks even owns a helicopter? I can’t find any.

                      Try the original Campbell Live story, about 02m12s.

                    • Thanks Anita.

                      So I guess we should also dislike Goff because he owns a Harley and that is damaging to everyone else.

                    • Matt

                      You must have missed the part where he said I OWN A HELICOPTER, fucktard. There’s this thing called Google..

                      ““Well – I have a helicopter of my own,” says Banks……..”I don’t know if I went in my own helicopter or if I went in Kim.com’s helicopter” 

                      http://merrilynhope.com/kim-coms-generous-donations-falsely-recorded-by-nz-politician-as-anonymous/  

                    • Fucktard? Nice one.

                    • Anita

                      TheContrarian writes,

                      So I guess we should also dislike Goff because he owns a Harley and that is damaging to everyone else.

                      Well I usually dislike him for what he did to Education in the late 80s, although being in the Douglas faction within Labour probably boosts that a bit.

                      If I was looking for something else it would be some of his actions as Minister of Defence, and similarly in Foreign Affairs and Trade.

                      If you want to look past the damage he’s done to the country and focus on his motorbike that’s your call.

                    • “If you want to look past the damage he’s done to the country and focus on his motorbike that’s your call.”

                      That is what I am getting at here, Anita. These people are going on about a fucking helicopter when there are real, proper and not stupid, reason to dislike Banks.
                      Going on about a helicopter just looks stupid and lacks credibility.

                    • KJT

                      Subjecting others to your noise with a private chopper is the same sort of, in your face, “I am a bigger swinging dick” attitude evidenced by those with loud exhaust pipes and/or big SUV’s that never get offroad.

                      Not to mention the emissions and fuel used.

                      Very indicative of the type of person and their attitude to others.
                      Boy racer with more expensive toys.

                    • Anita

                      TheContrarian writes,

                      when there are real, proper and not stupid, reason to dislike Banks.

                      Ooooo – let’s make a list!

                      Mine would start in the early 90s when he was Minister of Police at a time their culture was just sickening and roll forward through decades of anti-social, anti-community and anti-democratic practices.

                      Actively encouraging someone to subvert the law that maintains our local government democracy, then possibly breaking that law and lieing is doesn’t hit the top (bottom?) 10 of Banks actions, but it’d be enough all by itself.

                      Yuck.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      @TheContrarian

                      You keep going on about a helicopter when I said that I disliked him for the arrogance and disregard of everyone else that the ownership of the helicopter shows. And, yes, I apply the same to people who drive SUVs and v8s). Motorbikes not so much as they at least are reasonably economical compared to other private vehicles. Owning a Harley? Well, that’s just a lack of taste.

                    • felix

                      Good idea Anita!

                      This should probably have a trigger warning, even though it’s already in a thread about Banks,

                      I would like to add to the list the incident where a caller to his radio show said that gays deserve to have barbed wire shoved up the arses, and Banks’ response was that it would be a waste of barbed wire.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      It was a Triumph, not a Harley Davidson.

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                    Because whether or not he owns an helicopter is clearly the central issue here.

                    • felix

                      He bought it up. And anyone who brings “I own a helicopter” into a conversation without good reason deserves all the mocking they get IMHO 😉

                • felix

                  @ TheContrarian – “monster” isn’t a hyperbolic extension of what others were saying at all, which was essentially that Banks is a dickhead.

                  “Monster” implies malice which is quite a sideways leap from calling someone a twat.

                  According to your rule it would seem that any criticism can be seen as an exaggeration of any other criticism and therefore any critic can be held responsible for the worst possible thing you can imagine them saying, regardless of what they actually said.

                  Sorry mate, that’s fucking stupid.

                  Note: I said stupid, not monstrous, not totalitarian, not barbaric.

                  • “According to your rule it would seem that any criticism can be seen as an exaggeration of any other criticism and therefore any critic can be held responsible for the worst possible thing you can imagine them saying, regardless of what they actually said.”

                    Yeah, what? My rule?

                    • Contrarian – you should engage with Gosman one day. You two have a lot in common.

                    • Te Reo Putake

                      Bit tough on Gossie, Frank! Gosman is honest about his political leanings and educated well enough to know what ‘far left’ actually means. Thecontrarian doesn’t even seem to know what contrarian means.

                    • Te Reo Putake,

                      Bit tough on Gossie, Frank! Gosman is honest about his political leanings and educated well enough to know what ‘far left’ actually means. Thecontrarian doesn’t even seem to know what contrarian means.

                      Hmm, I didn’t think I was being “tough” on Gosman. From reading “Contrarian’s” style, it could be something that Gosman might write (but with less annoying rhetorical questions).

                      Having them at each other with their similar styles would be… interesting.

                      As for being “educated” – Gosman might well be highly educated. But I gave up taking him seriously with some incredibly naff comments from him. I think it proves that being well educated is not always commensurate with common sense and rational thinking.

                      (Or how I view common sense and rational thinking.)

                    • Alright, I’ll bite….

                      I am educated in Political Science with a smattering of journalism. Admittedly I started a bit later in life than most but I have been a long time autodidact and read extensively.

                      I know what contrarian means and think it is quite apt here where my opinion is out of step with most on this page.

                      I am well aware of political terminology like “far left” so there is no need to be patronizing.

                      As for being honest about my political leanings…well, I have voted for every major party in NZ except ACT, U.Future and the Maori party. I am an independent moderate who votes with my head, not an ideology. There isn’t really a party in NZ I can self identify with. I don’t share who I voted for in elections simply because people will use that to pigeon hole and label me so it doesn’t matter what I say because my comments will always be judged one who I voted for.

                      Anymore questions or would you further like to impinge on my character?

                    • McFlock

                      So you think you are a political “moderate”, but you have also voted National? Not really consistent and it suggests that your concept of “far left” might be a touch biased.
                           
                      You vote based “with your head”, not based on ideology. After studying political science (I assume acquiring a degree), you still have no opinion?
                              
                      Pretty interesting summary you gave there.

                    • @McFlock “So you think you are a political “moderate”, but you have also voted National? Not really consistent and it suggests that your concept of “far left” might be a touch biased.”

                      Being a moderate independent doesn’t mean always voting for centrist parties. It means I weigh up the all options (I am a fan of MMP) and can vote to decide which party I think will be able to make the best coalition (or, in other cases, who might be effective as an opposition) without having an allegiance to a particular party or rigid ideology. I understand that what is best for me and the country, in my opinion, might not always be the party I want to vote for or like at the time but understand they might have a better plan rather than the party, or politician, that I like. So previously voting for a National (not necessarily as a party vote you understand) is completely consistent. And I have voted for leftist parties in the past.
                      I think key is that I am an independent as opposed to strictly moderate. A party’s gotta work to get my vote…

                      Trust me, I have opinions. Strong ones too. But I consider my opinions on a frequent basis and am ready to discard a position if it turns out to be false.

                      When I say “far left” I am not using it as a weasel word or slur. It is merely a handy term, however vague and broad in its application.

                    • McFlock
                       
                       

                      Electorate votes aren’t for policies, they are for individual electorate representatives, so don’t use them to pretend that you are “moderate”.
                            
                      Nor should chances of winning/coalition-forming affect whether you vote labour or national or green (given that those are the only major parties which remain).
                          
                      It’s actually pretty simple – you vote for the party you think best reflects your personal policies. If you are outvoted, fine – that’s how democracy works. National consistently promote and pursue policies that harm the country socially, environmentally and economically.
                          
                      The trouble with the term “far left” is that it is based on a subjective judgement relative to the user’s perspective. If that is the perspective of an unrepentant national voter, it’s a skewed measure.
                             
                       

                       
                    • felix

                      “Yeah, what? My rule?”

                      Yep, your rule that redefines hyperbole. It’s quite a doozy.

  7. Anita 8

    it came in three separate payments – as requested by Banks so he could keep the donation anonymous.

    It being three payments is not sufficient in itself to allow the donation to be declared “anonymous”, it is also necessary that it is actually anonymous i.e. Banks didn’t know the donations were from Dotcom.

    • felix 8.1

      Perhaps he thought several smaller anonymous donations would be less likely to set off alarm bells than one larger one.

      • Anita 8.1.1

        Or give him the chance to say that he didn’t know which of all of the $25k donations were from Dotcom, so each was individually anonymous. That may meet the test for “anonymous” donations in the Local Electoral Act.

        • rosy 8.1.1.1

          dotcom says he wrote two cheques so the details will be on a bank statement? isn’t there some sort of expectation that you’ve looked through your bank statements for details before declaring a donation anonymous? Seems a pretty useless piece of legislation if there isn’t.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 8.2

      The crazy thing is he wasnt elected mayor so had no reason to hide the donor well after the election was over.

      Its a serious offence to knowingly file a false declaration
      .
      Is the most stupid thing we have seen from a politician ever

  8. KJT 9

    What makes you think Neo-Liberalism is not about deals for mates and pandering to the already wealthy.

    The “principles” of neo-liberalism are about giving more money to cheats and the already wealthy.

    That is the inevitable result.

  9. tsmithfield 10

    Banks could be in trouble on this one. However, there are technicalities that might be open to him due to the amount of $25000 he asked the donation to be split into.

    There are five separate donations of $25000 on his return.

    He might argue that he couldn’t identify which if any came from Dotcom due to them being anonymous. Therefore, he couldn’t declare Dotcom as the donor of any specific amount. If he knew others would also donate anonymously $25000, this might explain why he asked Dotcom to do the same.

    Banks could then say his later expression of thanks to Dotcom was along the lines of: “I see a number of $25000 amounts have shown up as anonymous donations. If any of those came from you, then thanks very much”.

    • toad 10.1

      And would any jury actually believe that?

      • Anita 10.1.1

        Is it beyond reasonable doubt that Banks couldn’t be totally sure which two of the five were from Dotcom?

    • DS 10.2

      Just to be a little cynical… what are the chances of him asking his wealthier supporters to donate $25,000 so that they could remain anonymous? If he asked Dotcom to donate a specific figure to stay anonymous it’s reasonable to presume he had the same conversation with others.

    • felix 10.3

      Bullshit.

      If he had five donations of 25000 and he knew that two of them came from Dotcom, he’s lying when he declares all five are anonymous.

    • Eddie 10.4

      even if banks hadn’t been handed the bloody cheques by Dotcom in person, the different dates of the 5 $25,000 donations would have told him which came from Dotcom. Anyway, he doesn’t have to specify which of the donations were from Dotcom, he just has to know that he got 2 $25,000 donations from Dotcom.

      Moreover, why has Banks received 5 anonymous donations of exactly $25,000? If anything it suggests that Banks was purposely hiding over major donors as well.

      And, ts, I do love how you make up what Banks might have said to Dotcom. Why do we need the legal system where ts can make a scenario whereby Banks’ behaviour might be technically legal?

    • ???

      Except that Sky City publicly disclosed their donations to Brown and Banks. Brown disclosed it – Banks did not.

  10. hoom 11

    Did Campbell speak to him at 3am or was Banks stoned during that call?
     

    https://twitter.com/#!/JohnBanksPR/status/196026714650984448

    Going by other tweets its a satire account.

    • felix 11.1

      “Did Campbell speak to him at 3am or was Banks stoned during that call?”

      That’s not an either/or question.

      • Eddie 11.1.1

        crikey. sounds like a case for vacancy under s55(a)(i) – “if he or she becomes mentally disordered”

        If you can’t even remember if you’ve flown a bloody helicopter to a goddamn mansion to meet a millionaire who was a good mate of yours, how can you be fit to be a minister?

        • gnomic 11.1.1.1

          I am not a psychiatrist, but speaking as a layperson, John Banks appears to exhibit symptoms of mental disorder which should probably disqualify him from holding public office. Archives of his last spell as a talkback host if such existed would provide rich hunting grounds for analysis.

          On a different matter, someone above used the malediction ‘fucktard’. Any chance of a lifetime ban for anyone using this, er, non-word? Is it in any dictionary; I sincerely hope not. Afraid I don’t think this sort of thing should be encouraged. Pretty sure it is not politically correct, and does it actually mean anything that can’t be expressed in cleaner language? A bit aggro on this as Kunstler’s Clusterf**k Nation blog was for a long time polluted by the rantings of a RWNJ whose favourite epithet was f**kt**d. Possibly another symptom of mental illness.

        • Hami Shearlie 11.1.1.2

          I think that the term for Banksie’s sudden amnesia is Automatic Alzheimer-Schultz syndrome. That is, when one is caught doing something very “iffy”, one’s mind automatically becomes Schultz-like with total loss of memory till the danger passes. Moustache and helmet optional!

    • mike e 11.2

      Frank there will be a tow truck outside Banksies place on monday recovering the proceeds of crime from former police minister

  11. burt 12

    So Banks might need to follow the path Winston has laid down… Deny, Delay, Denigrate the accusers. – then when found to be be completely self serving and full of shit – suffer the massive indignity of being required to re-file a few campaign funding returns.

    The key issue is; Has National managed to delay the investigation till after the statute of limitations as successfully as Labour did protecting their poodle.

    I sincerely hope Banks is up for the massive punishment of correcting paper work if he has broken the law.

    • Treetop 12.1

      Peters got back into parliament last November because of the party vote nationally.

      Act got back into parliament last November by the skin of their teeth because of Banks winning the Epsom seat.

      The two cannot be compared as the people spoke nationally. Those who voted for NZ First were fully aware of Winston being the NZ First leader were NZ First to win a seat or get 5% of the party vote.

      Peters massive punishment was being returned to parliament with the forth biggest caucus in 2011. I know that Peters got kicked in the teeth at the 2008 election. At least he was transparent. Were Banks and Key to have been transparent at the 2011 election I think that Act would have FULLY imploded at the last election.

    • Treetop 12.2

      “The key issue is”; If NZ public didn’t like what Peters did with filing campaign funding returns in 2008 I expect the NZ public would not like what Banks did in 2010 with some so called anonymous donations which are now going to be scrutinised.

      All central and local body politicians need to wake up and understand that their integrity is going to be judged by the people who elect them and that eventually they have a high probability of being found out if they have misled the public.

      I think that Kim dotcom is likely to have footage of Banks discussing the $50,000 donation. If Kim dotcom has footage, another teapot tape scenario could be repeated.

      • burt 12.2.1

        OK, you were making sense till you said; “At least he was transparent”

        Oh come on. The fact he was elected is not the point of relevance here. We’re a little bit past did he or did he not get elected one way or another. Address the real issue. Who was working with him and stood by him when he did all that shit and who is still prepared to work with him again ?

        You seem to be judging the men separately based on your perception of the donor and/or the colour of the party they prop up rather than their deeds.

        What would you say of National if after this they continue to deal with Banks having ruled Winston out?

        You say;

        and that eventually they have a high probability of being found out if they have misled the public.

        We had that realisation, that there actually is a probability. That ended with rocks being thrown at the Auditor General for making a bad call.

        I’m glad you are calling for real consequences for Banks, we might have to agree to disagree over Winston.

        • Treetop 12.2.1.1

          “At least he was transparent.”

          By this I mean the public were aware of the donations drama prior to a general election so they were informed. This cannot be said about Banks. I realise that regarding Banks it is mayoral donations and not Act donations. Remember Bank’s line when he was a National politician. “There is one law it’s for you it’s for me it’s for everyone.”

          Who was working with him and stood by him when he did all that shit and who is prepared to work with him again?

          What Peters did was not an offense at the time, so no conviction resulted.

          What would you say of National if after this they continue to deal with Banks having ruled Winston out?

          National can only continue to deal with Banks if he is cleared of filing anonymous donations. I do not think that Winston would contemplate being a coalition partner with National.

          • burt 12.2.1.1.1

            What Peters did was not an offense at the time, so no conviction resulted.

            Right, so no conviction wasn’t a result of the statute of limitations for prosecuting – it was because he didn’t commit an offence….. So there is no legal requirement to declare donations then ?

            APOLOGIST ALERT !

            • Colonial Viper 12.2.1.1.1.1

              Uh…what is this statute of limitations you speak of?

            • RedLogix 12.2.1.1.1.2

              Are you sure about the ‘statute of limitations’ thing?

            • burt 12.2.1.1.1.3

              CV, it’s more clearly described here;
              Gordon Campbell: Winston Peters’ Rebuttal Of Glenn

              RedLogix – He was found guilty of misleading parliament and the public, he re-filed his returns and admitted he had received the donations. Unless all of that is not in the public interest to prosecute then what else could it have been that stopped him being prosecuted?

              Edit: Also here is a good timeline.
              NZ Herald: Timeline: The NZ First donations saga

            • Treetop 12.2.1.1.1.4

              So there is no legal requirement to declare donations then?

              burt you actually supplied the answer to your question in the link NZ Herald: Timeline: The NZ First donations saga below 12.2.1.1.1. Go to the date of July 23 2008.

              “Helen Clark said it was up to the registrar of MPs’ pecuniary interests – Dame Margaret Bazley – to decide whether Mr Peters should have registered the legal fund, donations into it or the debt he carried.”

              “Helen Clark noted that National MP Nick Smith had declared an interest in a legal trust fund, but not the debt or who had paid it.”

              “Dr Smith told Parliament that he followed the advice of the registrar. Helen Clark said if this was correct then Mr Peters did not have to declare his debts or gifts.”

              Party donations needed to be declared and trust fund donations did not need to be declared. That’s how I saw it at the time. I need to check up what changes were made to the declaration of donations for my own learning.

  12. burt 13

    OK, so it’s OK when it benefits the red team is out of the way…..

    If Banks has been dishonest about his returns he should stand in court – lets not follow the multiple precedents set down by Labour.

    • Eddie 13.1

      Burt. we’ve warned you before about posting when you’re on meth.

      • Tiger Mountain 13.1.1

        Heh Eddie, yours is the second post of today that has had me chuckling…

        Burt… steady on old chap.

    • Colonial Viper 13.2

      No more tea party photos between Key and Banks then?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 13.3

      Trouble is that National has attacked Labour over their handling of those issues- and they made it a big deal.

      Boots on the other foot now

  13. Bank’s has always been a nasty bit of goods. A racist foul being. I well remember the” Honi” episode when he and his racist mate John Carter were caught out on Bank’s talk back programme .Let’s hope this time he will pay the penalty. he thinks he is bullet proof . Lets hope he gets given the lawfull penalty.

  14. Treetop 15

    “he thinks he is bullet proof.”

    Banks won’t bite the bullet either, (to do or accept something difficult or unpleasant).

    Kim dotcom is not scared of Banks.

  15. millsy 16

    I wouldnt start breaking out the bubbly just yet…wait till he is walking down the road.

  16. tsmithfield 17

    Here are the specific instructions for how donations returns are completed.

    Here set out the name and description of every person or body of persons from whom or which any donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) of a sum or value of more than $1,000 (such amount being inclusive of any goods and services tax and of a series of donations made by or on behalf of any one person that aggregate more than $1,000 (inclusive of any goods and services tax)) was received by the candidate or by any other person on the candidate’s behalf for use by or on behalf of the candidate in the campaign for his or her election. The amount of each donation received is to be set out separately. If a donation of a sum of more than $1,000 was received from an anonymous person, the amount of the donation must be stated and the fact that the person who made the donation is anonymous must also be stated.

    Notice that there is no requirement for the candidate to investigate where anonymous donations have come from. There responsibility is simply to state them as being anonymous if they have been made anonymously.

    In this case, Banks may have asked for the donation, and that it be made anonymously. If then, that sum arrives in the account without reference, then Banks may have a very strong suspicion that it had come from the requested donor. However, there still remains the possibility that it had come from some other source. In this case, five anonymous donations of $25000 had arrived in his account. I suspect that Bank’s defence will be that he recorded the anonymous donations as anonymous as required by the act. The fact that he had a strong reason to suspect where the donation had come from might not be relevant.

    I suspect a conviction would require evidence that the donor had personally handed funds to the candidate, or that the donor was clearly disclosed when making the donation. For instance, the donor’s name as a reference on a bank transfer etc.

    It will be interesting to see what happens. Personally, I don’t really care as I am not particularly fond of Banks, and National’s position won’t be affected whatever the outcome.

    • bad12 17.1

      And if Banks later rang the ”anonymous” donor and thanked them for the donation???…

      • tsmithfield 17.1.1

        From what I can see from those instructions, the key seems to be how the donation is received, not what is known about the donor by the candidate. On that basis, the donor might request that the donation be received anonymously, because they want to remain anonymous. Then there would be no record on the return that would enable the donor to be identified. It seems to me this procedure is to protect the donor rather than the candidate.

        If more was expected, I would expect the instructions would continue on to require the candidate to state the identity of the donor if it is known to the candidate, even if the donation is made anonymously. I don’t see anything like that in those instructions. So, Banks may well have an easy out.

        I think there might also be a distinction between being anonymous and being unknown to the recipient. For instance, I might make a donation to an organisation and request that it be kept anonymous as I don’t want attention. However, the organisation may know who I am.

        It seems to me that contributors here might be conflating “anonymous” with “unknown”.

        Bear in mind that the police will pay particular attention to the wording of this clause when deciding whether to charge or not.

        • Colonial Viper 17.1.1.1

          On that basis, the donor might request that the donation be received anonymously, because they want to remain anonymous.

          Yeah and wouldn’t it be a shame if Kim Dotcom had made a specific request for such anonymity.

          You know, because Kim Dotcom seems to be the kind of low profile retiring soul who would prefer not to be noticed.

        • crashcart 17.1.1.2

          The issue I have with what you are saying is that you think the law is designed to protet the donor should they not want every one to know who they are. I would think that it is designed to protect every one from donors who want to have undue influence over a polotition from behind an anonymous tag.

          • McFlock 17.1.1.2.1
             
             

            I agree. S5(1) of the act Tsmithfield linked to:
                 

            anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation (as defined in section 104), means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation

            And Dotcom’s recollection of events:

            “I kind of liked the guy. I said, ‘I’m happy to help.’ I told Wayne to write a cheque for $50,000.
            “His [Mr Banks’] eyes got a little bit bigger at that moment.”
            Mr Tempero asked the chief financial officer to come into the room to write the cheque.
            “John said, ‘Wait a minute’,” Dotcom recalled last night. “‘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’.”
            Dotcom said one cheque was made out in his own name, or the name of his company Megastuff Ltd, and the other in Mr Tempero’s name.
            “He [Mr Banks] called me a few days after the cheques entered his bank account and he thanked me personally.”

             According to that description of events, at the very least the cheques were made out in someone’s name – i.e. not “anonymous”. And that’s without a thankyou call.
             
             

             
            • calltoaccount 17.1.1.2.1.1

              I took this as humour McFlock, it reads like you made it up for a weekend joke! Until I googled some text from the quote. Incredibly, it is so. 🙂

              • felix

                Goodness gracious. Things are looking better and better for our old mate Banksie all the time!

            • yeshe 17.1.1.2.1.2

              The variously published details have suggested to me the cheques were cut, signed, and immediately delivered into Banks’ hands .. the ‘thank you’ phone call came after the cheques had cleared … so who would Banks have given the cheques to for depositing I wonder ?

        • Anita 17.1.1.3

          I think this is the right analogy:

          Friday: at a fundraising meeting John meets Chris and Ana, both say they’re planning to donate and will drop a thousand off over the weekend.
          Saturday: on the way back from brunch John finds an envelope containing $1,000 in his mailbox
          Sunday: on the way back from brunch John finds an envelope containing $1,000 in his mailbox
          Monday: John rings Chris and Ana and thanks each of them for donating.

          When filling in his return John lists two anonymous donations, one for $1,000 received on Saturday, the other for $1,000 received on Sunday. He justifies that by saying he doesn’t know which envelope was from Chris and which was from Ana.

          This, to my untrained eye, appears to fit with the Local Electoral Act definition of anonymous donations.

          Of course it shouldn’t, the donations aren’t actually anonymous, but John has danced his way through the loophole.

          • Eddie 17.1.1.3.1

            see, I’m not sure that’s right. John knows he got $1,000 from each of Chris and Ana. It doesn’t matter that he can’t say which of the $1,000 came from which person. He knows who the donors are and has to declare that he got $1,000 from each of them.

            But that’s all moot because Dotcom physically gave Banks the cheques.

            • tsmithfield 17.1.1.3.1.1

              Yeah. I agree that makes things a bit more awkward for Banks.

              From reading the article, it seems that Dotcom admits to having a discussion about how donations could be kept anonymous. That being the case, I could only see Bank’s defence being that he received the donations anonymously at the request of the donor, and hence filled out the return in the manner on the basis of good faith.

              The police will then need to determine where anonymity is considered to arise in terms of the act. Does it arise because the donor requests it, or because the recipient doesn’t know who the donor is?

              • Eddie

                s5(1) anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation (as defined in section 104), means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation

                even if it weren’t for the fact that Banks was handed the cheques by Dotcom, there would be the question of whether we want an ass made of the law by a cheap parlour trick: ‘I know I got donations from these 5 people but since they all deposited the same amount in my account with no names attached to the deposits, I can’t say which is from whom, therefore, they’re all anonymous!’

                • tsmithfield

                  Can’t agree with you about your second point though.

                  This only works if there are only the five known donors who could have made the donations of unidentified amounts of a given sum. However, there always remains the possibility, however slight, that another unknown donor could have made a donation and an expected donor did not. That being the case, claiming anonymity is probably OK in those circumstances.

              • bad12

                My my if you aint a lawyer best you enrol and get the silk,thats gotta be the best hair-splitting that i have seen yet over Banks gathering of donations,

                Futile tho,in terms of the act ANONYMOUS means the recipient DID NOT KNOW where the donation came from,

                You know,the same sort of anonymous that we all understand,

                Anonymous aint where the donor and a member of the donors staff, hand over two 25 grand checks which you deposit in an account and later phone the donor to thank Him for the donation,

                Now that AINT anonymous in anyones book, especially the LAW book which deals with such donations…

            • Anita 17.1.1.3.1.2

              Eddie writes,

              He knows who the donors are and has to declare that he got $1,000 from each of them.

              The problem, in part, is that the Local Electoral Act doesn’t require that you provide information about donors, it requires information about donations. While, in my example, John knows that Chris and Ana are donors that doesn’t matter. What matters is what he knows about each donation – and he doesn’t actually know who gave him the Saturday envelope.

              And yes, bad12, this is epic hairsplitting (or ant fucking as a Dutch friend would call it (mierenneuken)), but there’s legislation and lawyers involved – so whether Banks will be charged and convicted is not about whether what he did was right, it’s about whether it was criminal.

        • Anita 17.1.1.4

          tsmithfield writes,

          On that basis, the donor might request that the donation be received anonymously, because they want to remain anonymous.

          I think that the donor would request that the recipient find a way to receive the donation in a way which will make the donation anonymous. They can’t hand a personal cheque to the candidate and say “this donation is anonymous, please don’t record who I am”, but they can say “i would like to make a donation, how can we do it so that my name won’t be recorded?”

          Under the current broken legislation anyhow.

          • tsmithfield 17.1.1.4.1

            I agree with you on both of your posts, Anita. I accept your correction of my point in your second post.

            If an amount arrives in the recipients bank account without identification, then I don’t think it is the obligation of the recipient to record the identity of the donor, though. The fact that the donation has arrived in an anonymous fashion, meets the test of being received anonymously.

            However, the recipient might have a fairly good idea of who gave it, and ring up and thank them for it. Any assumptions that are made on this basis don’t seem to be relevant to the way the form is completed.

            • handle 17.1.1.4.1.1

              Nice try. “Does not know who made the donation” means exactly that. Nothing there about how it is ‘received’.

              • felix

                tsmithfield does make a habit of inventing his own tests for issues tangential to the actual issues which, coincidentally, the disgraceful behaviour in question always seems to pass.

        • felix 17.1.1.5

          “It seems to me that contributors here might be conflating “anonymous” with “unknown”.”

          err, no:

          anonymous, in relation to an electoral donation (as defined in section 104), means a donation that is made in such a way that the candidate concerned does not know who made the donation

          Note “in relation to an electoral donation”, not to a person.

    • Kevin Welsh 17.2

      Sounds like a wet dream to me TS.

      Tell me, are you pissing yourself laughing when you write these fantasies?

      • felix 17.2.1

        Can you hear that fapping sound?

        • tsmithfield 17.2.1.1

          On the basis of the above, it looks like Banks is fucked then, if what Dotcom said stacks up.

          As I said above, I don’t really care because I don’t particularly like Banks, and National will most likely win Epsom, so their majority won’t be affected as they will pick up a seat and not lose a list MP as I understand the act.

          • Colonial Viper 17.2.1.1.1

            Those in Epsom knew who they were voting for when they voted Banks in.

            And they’ve likely just wasted the country half a million dollars with a by-election.

            • tsmithfield 17.2.1.1.1.1

              I imagine National would be quite pleased if there is a quick bi-election because that would free them from the far-right influence that is used as a stick against them.

              The biggest problem for them would be a protracted delay before the matter is decided. I expect Key would have to stand Banks down from his ministerial responsibilities pending the matter being decided.

    • “If a donation of a sum of more than $1,000 was received from an anonymous person, the amount of the donation must be stated and the fact that the person who made the donation is anonymous must also be stated.”

      Funny how Brown knew that Skycity had donated to his campaign – but Banksie didn’t? How does that work, TS?

      As for the Dotcom thing – it seems that our Germanic cuzzie has video of Banksie associating with him (for more than 20 minutes!), and witnesses to the convo about donations.

      But hey, maybe it should be up to the Police to sort this out.

      A bit of judicious waterboarding will sort this.

  17. Phil 18

    Grubby little man, grubby little deal.

  18. felix 19

    Seriously though, who would’ve thought that installing the ghost of John Banks into the corpse of ACT would end up being a massive millstone around John Key’s fragile neck?

    Ah that’s right, everyone.

  19. Treetop 20

    Nothing is anonymous today as everything can be traced back to who wrote the check as it has to be cashed. Cash is probably the only way to not be traced.

    Can cash be given as a donation to a mayoral campaign?

  20. bad12 21

    Can someone give Mt Eden a bell and get Archie’s old cell a quick sweep out, seems the prodigal son is begging to come home for a spiritual cleansing…

  21. Phil 22

    Hope someone of a legal mindset can shed some light on this.
    The one area of legislation that I am very familiar with concerns mental health.
    I work with the legislation on a daily basis and have to navigate the twists and turns to benefit the people I work with.
    Now, the spirit of the mental health act is as important as the letter of the mental heath act. Actions or omissions must be completed or not in the Spirit of the legislation, as distinct from the letter of the legislation. Failure to act in the Spirit of the legislation carries censure which is often more punitive than failure to act in the letter of the law.
    Now if a politician acts in a way that is not in the Spirit of a certain piece of legislation, but holds a centimeter of ground on the letter of the law, are there grounds to take legal recourse?

    • bad12 22.1

      Are you by any chance asking if ‘we’ think that Banks might benefit from an extended course of ECT treatment???…

    • Anita 22.2

      There is a difference between judgments of criminality (which is what we’re discussing) and civil matters (like mental health).

      The usual contrast, that I’ve heard anyway, is “beyond reasonable doubt” vs “balance of probabilities”. In effect it means that the threshold for a criminal charge is higher than may be needed when balancing up conflicting positions in a civil matter.

  22. Carol 23

    I see John Armstrong over at the Herald has his finger on the pulse with his column today – full of praise for the way Banksie is managing the Charter school thingy.

    • xtasy 23.1

      John Armstrong must be excused, he is getting a bit beyond himself at times these days. A nice chap, but he should actually retire in grace, before being ushered out of his job.

      • Colonial Viper 23.1.1

        There’s every chance that Armstrong wrote that a couple of days ago, putting it in the queue. And never pulled it back.

        • xtasy 23.1.1.1

          The Queue is a problem then, because this is not up to date, aye? Apart from that, what does journalism usually mean now? It means nothing at all , a bit of a glimpse her e, a bit there. I have had my dealings with some of them, and one of the better ones are Simon Collins, also still working for the Herald. At least he makes an effort.

          I also know new stories, and there was a bit on Housing NZ in the Herald on Sunday a month or so ago, where we now have Housing NZ clients ring that supposedly “better service” and “magic” 0800 number, and then have to wait 25 or more minutes, until someone responds. This is no BS, and I know of a case just a few days ago! This is much worse than WINZ.

          They also did not update a client’s details and need for housing for ages, even after a new phone number was supplied years ago, that was never registered, and they ignored a number of letters by medical specialists emphasizing the highest emergency of a case, still treating the “priority” as supposedly “low”. I consulted own professionals, and they are horrified about what goes on in NZ welfare and housing.

          At the same time we have persons like Banks live on tax payer’s expenses, wanting to vote for destruction of more poor people’s lives and then lie to the Parlieament and public about donations they receive from powerful businesses and lobby groups.

          I think most South American countries are now less corrupt than this crap country. Sorry any offence to patriotic Kiwis, but you are living under such conditions now!

  23. debatewatcher 24

    Questions…

    1. Does Banks do the honourable thing and resign now, or does he let it drag on?

    2. Does Key strip him of his ministerial warrants? Thinking of Nick Smith, others have gone for less…but then again, it’s not Key’s party.

    3. If there’s a by-election:-

    a.) Do we have another wink wink deal, this time with Catherine Isaacs and Goldsmith?
    b.) Or does Act accept its fate and not stand a candidate, thus consigning itself to oblivion
    c.) Variation of b.) what about a formal merger between Act and National prior to the by election, with Isaacs standing as the National candidate and getting a high place on the next list?
    d.) Or no deal at all – both parties compete properly for the seat to avoid any apparent dirty deals?
    e.) What about a third candidate – Winston Peters or Colin Craig, perhaps? Epsom voters are not stupid and might take out their fury at the shenanigans by voting for someone else entirely.

    I think a National-Act merger is plausible – it’s been talked about in the past (raised in 2004 by Prebble, which was one reason why he was rolled as leader), and if the party’s brand was toxic before it must be positively radioactive now.

  24. Te Reo Putake 25

    Call me cynical, but I’d put a lazy twenty on one of the five ‘anonymous’ donations of $25k being from John Key. Follow the money and all that.

  25. xtasy 26

    BANKS IS DEAD, BANKS IS POLITICALLY DEAD, HE HAS COMMITTED VIRTUAL LEGAL SUICIDE NOW! WOW, THIS IS REALLY EXCITING AND UTMOST IMPORTANT STUFF HAPPENING NOW. DOTCOM SAVES NZ FROM ASSET SALES, IT SEEMS. WITH HIS HONEST EXPOSURE OF WHAT BANKSIE HAS EXPECTED HIM TO DO WITH WELL MEANT DONATIONS FOR HIS MAYORAL CAMPAIGN TWO YEARS AGO, HE HAS DELIVERED THE OPPOSITION AND NZ AS A WHOLE THE GREATEST FAVOUR ONE COULD HAVE EVER DREAMT OFF. THIS WILL LEAD TO BANKSIE BEING INVESTIGATED FURTHER (BEYOND THE SKY CITY DONATION NOT DECLARED), SHOW THE TOTAL ROT THIS GOVERNMENT AND ITS SUPPORTERS CONSIST OF, THE CLOSE TO CORRUPTION KIND OF AFFAIRS IN NZ GOVERNMENT IN 2012, AND IT MUST FINALLY CONVINCE EVERY DECENT, HONEST AND FAIR MINDED KIWI TO THROW THE RAG AT KEY AND HIS LOT.

    IT IS OVER, DEAR JOHN, IT IS OVER, FOR SURE. DECLARE A BYELECTION IN EPSOM NOW, IT WILL DELAY A WHOLE LOT OF LEGISLATION YOU WANT TO PUSH THROUGH UNDER URGENCY, CAUSING IMMENSE HARM AND DISTRESS TO AFFECTED KIWIS, AND IT WILL DESTROY YOUR GOVERNMENT’S ABILITY TO ACT AND RUN THIS COUNTRY.

    YOU ARE FINALLY STUFFED, JOHN KEY, AND YOU BETTER LOOK FOR A NEAT BANKING, BONKING OR INVESTMENT JOB OF SOME SORTS OVERSEAS RIGHT NOW. HALLELUJAH. THANK YOU DOT COM, STAY IN NZ AS LONG AS YOU LIKE!

    [All caps is treated as ‘shouting’ and is considered very bad manners. Usually we just delete it on sight, but because you have not done it before this a request to only use caps vary sparingly. Repeat efforts will be deleted…RL]

    • Anita 26.1

      Why are you shouting?

    • xtasy 26.2

      Sorry, but I got so excited about the events of the last 24 hours, which may change the political landscape in NZ and its parliament substantially. Will bear this in mind, though. Thx

  26. Peter in Papua New Guinea 27

    Looks bad to me, if true Banksey should be out immediately. No need for this shit in NZ politics. His memory is as bad as Peter’s re the Owen Glenn phone call in 2008.

  27. R Robertson 28

    Yes “Follow the Money” never a truer word said
    In this case it should lead to the answer
    John Key associates with wonderful people doesn’t he?

  28. North 29

    “The Two Ronnies” !

    To the less amusing picture………Banks on Q + A just now. Banks stubbornly refused, several times, to answer the central question – did he know that the money was from Dotcom before it was paid ?

    Even Christine Rankin on the panel didn’t try a rationalisation. Instead she remarked directly that Banks had failed to deny. She got it right and it’s big. He’s failed to call Dotcom’s direct “evidence” a lie.

    The surrounding circumstancial evidence – the phone calls, the dinner invitation……….the helicopter…….the presence of Dotcom’s senior team members……..the subsequent payment of substantial money. Add to this Dotcom’s direct evidence asserting what Banks will not deny and you have a clear prima facie case.

    A prima facie case automatically matures into a proven beyond reasonable doubt case if there is no other evidence contesting the central issue (did Banks know beforehand ? etc etc).

    The only way Banks can make even the slightest difference is himself to give “evidence” on oath that he did not know, full stop. And still that evidence would suffer scrutiny for credibility and be weighed against all other evidence, direct and circumstancial.

    Is the man’s sense of entitlement so grossly pathological as to attempt the “evidence” sideshow ?

    He’d better get Dotcom to instruct him in downloading a resignation precedent.

  29. burt 30

    IrishBill,

    I’ve taken you blog post and made very few corrections; It’s bizarre how similar this is eh. I do agree with you though, Banks must go!

    I think sometimes people forget that John Banks Winston Peters made his political bones under Muldoon, but lessons of the old tusker are on full display at the moment as he meets new allegations of dodgy campaign funding with the kind of aggressive black is white response that would make piggy proud.

    It’s been revealed that Banks Peters took fifty one hunderd thousand dollars for his campaign from Kim Dotcom. Owen Glenn Given the subsequent furore around DotcomOwen Glenn , the would be slightly embarrassing in its own right but it’s been considerably exacerbated by the fact it came in three two separate payments via a secret trust – as requested by Banks Peters so he could keep the donation anonymous.

    This may be illegal as I believe the the test for whether the donation is anonymous is the candidate’s knowledge of the donor rather than the wish of the donor to go unnamed (but I’m no big city lawyer – anyone who is please feel free to comment). However it certainly raises a whole lot of questions about what other donors Banksie Winny is hiding and what favours might be attached to those donations.

    And remember, Banksie Winny is John Key’s was Helen Clark’s majority.

    In some ways this is part of a trend I’m seeing on the right left toward small-time cronyism and backroom handshake deals. They appear to be moving away from the slavish worship of neo-liberalism and multi-national capitalism and towards the kind of deals-for-mates, personal-connection politics we’ve seen them embrace before – in Muldoon’s day.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago